For me, Republic Day is not merely military parades and pageantry, but a strong reminder that India chose to be governed by laws rather than by unchecked will of those in power. When the Constitution of India came into force on January 26, 1950, it deliberately restrained the executive, insisting that authority be exercised within clearly defined legal boundaries. It is a matter of coincidence that January 26 is also observed globally as International Customs Day, bringing into focus the role of an institution that polices the country’s borders.
Customs administrations operate at the frontline of sovereignty. They regulate the entry and exit of goods and people at ports, airports and land borders, collect revenue, prevent smuggling, enforce prohibitions and restrictions under multiple laws, and act as a strong deterrence against trade in narcotics, money laundering and transnational crime. Yet few other agencies can so immediately disrupt commerce or personal liberty, detain goods, initiate investigations, impose punishments etc., often on the basis of executive satisfaction. Customs thus offers a revealing lens through which to examine anxieties about executive overreach.
The theme of International Customs Day 2026, announced by the World Customs Organization, is “Customs Protecting Society Through Vigilance and Commitment.” Protection of society is unquestionably a legitimate objective. But vigilance, if divorced from proportionality, commitment and accountability, can slide into excess. In a constitutional democracy, the real challenge is not to weaken enforcement but to ensure that it remains firmly anchored in law.
India’s Customs administration has modernised rapidly in recent years. Digital platforms, faceless assessment, risk-based clearances and single-window systems have transformed the mechanics of trade. These reforms have reduced physical interface and improved efficiency. Yet, technology cannot by itself cure structural problems. Despite reform, businesses continue to complain of prolonged investigations, coercive recoveries before adjudication and expansive interpretations introduced through circulars. Such practices feed the perception that discretion still outweighs due process.
Republic Day is a reminder that the executive’s role is limited to administering the law enacted by the legislature. Where Parliament has prescribed procedures, safeguards and timelines, administrative convenience cannot justify bypassing them. Executive instructions cannot override statutes, nor can urgency substitute for natural justice. When the investigation process becomes punishment, or adjudication appears pre-determined, the constitutional balance is disturbed.
Customs laws place responsibility on officers exercising quasi-judicial powers to act judiciously. At the stages of adjudication and appeal, independence of mind, reasoned orders and fair hearing are not optional courtesies but legal obligations. The claims of trade facilitation sit uneasily with perceptions of unchecked authority. Predictability and restraint are as important to revenue protection as vigilance.
In India, the calls for deregulation and trust-based governance reflect an understanding that excessive control can stifle economic activity without improving compliance. But deregulation will remain cosmetic unless accompanied by cultural change in administration. This balance matters not only for traders, but for citizens who expect the state to act firmly yet fairly. Where executive authority is seen as arbitrary, compliance weakens and litigation multiplies. The cost is paid in lost trust and institutional credibility over a period and delayed growth.
Republic Day offers a timely moment for introspection. Customs protects society best not by stretching its authority, but by exercising it within constitutional limits. In a Republic governed by law, power earns legitimacy only when it remains within bounds.