New Delhi, Oct 18 (Agency) The Supreme Court on Friday recalled its 2022 judgment in the case Union of India vs Ganpati Dealcom Pvt. Ltd, which had declared Sections 3(2) and 5 of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act of 1988 unconstitutional. A bench led by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra, allowed a review petition filed by the Union Government, overturning the earlier ruling. The court observed that the constitutionality of the original provisions of the unamended Benami Transactions Act had never been questioned during the original proceedings. The main issue considered at the time was whether the amendments made to the Act in 2016 had a prospective effect. However, in its earlier order, the bench had ruled that certain provisions of the unamended Act were unconstitutional.
In its order recalling the judgment, the bench emphasized that no challenge had been raised concerning the constitutionality of the unamended Act’s provisions. The court pointed out that deciding on the validity of a law without an active contest is inappropriate, which led to the decision to grant the review. As a result, the bench recalled the 2022 judgment and restored the civil appeal for fresh adjudication by another bench. Justice Chandrachud clarified that the current bench was not making any judgment on the validity of the Act’s provisions, leaving that matter for future consideration.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the Union Government, pointed out that the 2022 judgment had itself acknowledged that none of the parties had raised arguments regarding the unconstitutionality of the unamended provisions. Mehta said that despite the 2016 amendments, the unamended sections were struck down in the original ruling. The 2022 judgment had been delivered by a bench consisting of then Chief Justice NV Ramana, Justices Krishan Murari, and Hima Kohli. It also ruled that the 2016 amendments to the Benami Act could not be applied retrospectively. The court had described the criminal and confiscation provisions in the 1988 Act as overly broad and disproportionately harsh, stating that Sections 3 and 5 were unconstitutional from the start.