Context: Despite the affirmation of the right to privacy in the 2017 Puttaswamy judgment, concerns persist regarding Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, potentially infringing on citizens' fundamental rights.

Understanding Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961:

Introduction and Historical Context: Introduced to replace the invalidated Taxation on Income (Investigation Commission) Act, 1947, Section 132 had its roots in the Supreme Court's Suraj Mall Mohta vs A.V. Visvanatha Sastri (1954) ruling, declaring the old act discriminatory and in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution.

Empowering Tax Authorities: Section 132 grants tax authorities the power to conduct searches and seizures without a prior judicial warrant if there is a "reason to believe" that income has been concealed or evaded. This authority extends to searching buildings, places, vehicles, or aircraft based on suspicions of hiding financial assets, allowing for the seizure of relevant items during the search.

Challenges Associated with Section 132:

Breach of the Proportionality Principle: While not formally challenged, concerns arise about a potential breach of the proportionality principle. The use of search and seizure powers must align with legitimate aims, be rationally connected to objectives, lack alternative less intrusive means, and balance the means chosen with the violated right.

Violation of the Right to Privacy: Section 132 faces criticism for potentially infringing on the right to privacy, a fundamental right under Article 21, as income tax searches encroach on individuals' privacy without consent. Critics emphasize the need for stricter adherence to statutory law post-Puttaswamy and safeguards against potential misuse.

Duration and Conditions of Searches: Questions raised by the Gujarat High Court regarding the duration and conditions of searches highlight concerns. Instances of virtual detention without proper safeguards prompt a re-evaluation of the conditions and duration of searches under Section 132.

Proposed Solutions and the Way Forward:

Enhanced Judicial Review: Advocacy for an enhanced role of the judiciary in reviewing Section 132 applications, moving away from the Wednesbury principle, and adopting a more rigorous scrutiny standard to assess the proportionality of executive actions.

Independent Oversight Mechanism:Suggestion for establishing an independent oversight mechanism or ombudsman with the authority to investigate  complaints, ensure accountability, and recommend corrective measures in cases of potential misuse of powers.

Limiting Searches Duration and Conditions: Emphasis on the need to limit the duration and extent of income tax searches, addressing concerns about individuals being kept in virtual detention without proper safeguards.