The Supreme Court on Monday declined to entertain a petition challenging provisions of the Income Tax Act, 2025, which empower tax authorities to conduct raids without notice and search not only physical spaces but also private computer systems and virtual digital spaces while probing suspected tax evasion cases [Vishwaprasad Alva Vs. Union Of India].

A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi was hearing a public interest litigation (PIL) petition challenging Section 132(1)(b) and (1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and corresponding provisions in Section 247(1)(a)(ii) and Section 247(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 2025 (to take effect on April 1, 2026).

The petitioner had raised concerns that these provisions could be misused and lacked adequate safeguards to prevent the harassment of taxpayers.

CJI Bagchi, however, observed that the Court cannot speculate about potential misuse, where statutory remedies already existed to tackle any actual harassment.

“We cannot second guess a provision to the extent of remedy provided. Remedy is good enough for us,” he said.

CJI Kant noted that the concerns raised in the plea were largely speculative at this stage, and that the expanded search and seizure provisions in question were intended to tackle cases of significant tax evasion.

“This is an initial apprehension and some (provisions) are innocuously made which looks like it can be misused... So courts may have to examine it later. But often it is streamlined. These acts are often for the big tax evaders etc,” he observed.

The Court eventually allowed the petitioner to withdraw the plea after he sought to approach the Union government for clarification on the provisions in focus.

The petition filed by one Vishwaprasad Alva had challenged the broad search powers granted to tax authorities, particularly the ability to access phones, emails, cloud data and other digital records during raids without prior notice.

The petitioner argued that under the revised law, IT authorities were given unchecked powers to conduct search and survey operations, without having to disclose their reasons for the same.

The plea had argued that such provisions could affect privacy and lacked clear safeguards against misuse.

The plea has prayed that these provisions be declared unconstitutional or read down to harmonise them with Articles 14 (right to equality and non-discrimination) and 21 (right to life and liberty) of the Constitution.

Alternatively, the petitioner urged the Court to direct the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) to set clear rules for conducting raids, handling media disclosures, and addressing complaints in line with constitutional rights.

The petition was filed through advocate Pranjal Kishore.

Appearing for the petitioner today, Senior Advocate Sanjay Hegde submitted that while authorities need not disclose reasons for searches beforehand, there should at least be an internal mechanism to record those reasons so they can be examined later if the action is challenged.

Notably, an explanation to Section 132 of the IT Act, 1961 and a corresponding provision in Section 249 of the 2025 IT Act lays down that a tax officer's reasons for exercising his search and seizure powers need not be disclosed to any person or authority or the income tax appellate tribunal.

“Question is, while I concede that reasons need not be disclosed in advance... but there should be a mechanism by which reasons should be within, in the institution, so that it can later relied upon. Please see what CAG audit said about this Section. Also my lord... a system can be made better so that assessees are not unnecessarily harassed,” Hegde told the Court.

The Court, however, expressed that it was not inclined to delve into these issues. Hegde then suggested that the petitioner could approach the government authorities with his concerns if the Court gave liberty to do so. However, the CJI Kant clarified that the Court was not compelling the petitioner to take that route.

“We do not want to oblige anyone. If you want to go, you can go,” CJI Kant said.

The Court eventually allowed the petitioner to withdraw the plea so that he could approach the government seeking certain clarifications of the disputed provisions.

[Read Live Coverage]