NDLI: Union of India & Anr. Vs. M/s. Ganpati Dealcom Pvt. Ltd.

Content Provider	Supreme Court of India
e-ISSN	30484839
Language	English
Access Restriction	NDLI
Subject Keyword	Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act 1988
Content Type	Text
Resource Type	Law Judgement
Jurisdiction	India
Case(s) Referred	Referred Case 0 Referred Case 1 Referred Case 2 Referred Case 3 Referred Case 4 Referred Case 5 Referred Case 6 Referred Case 7 Referred Case 8 Referred Case 9 Referred Case 10 Referred Case 11 Referred Case 12 Referred Case 13 Referred Case 14 Referred Case 15 Referred Case 16 Referred Case 17 Referred Case 18
Case Type	Appeal
Court	Supreme Court of India
Disposal Nature	Appeal Disposed Off
Headnote	Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988 – ss. 3(2),5 – Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Amendment Act, 2016 – Held: s. 3(2) of the unamended 1988 Act is unconstitutional for being manifestly arbitrary – Accordingly, s. 3(2) of the 2016 Act is also unconstitutional as it is violative of Article 20(1) of the Constitution – Further, in rem forfeiture provision u/s. 5 of the unamended Act of 1988, prior to the 2016 Amendment Act, was unconstitutional for being manifestly arbitrary – 2016 Amendment Act was not merely procedural, rather, prescribed substantive provisions – In rem forfeiture provision u/s. 5 of the 2016 Act, being punitive in nature, can only be applied prospectively and not retroactively – Thus, concerned authorities cannot initiate or continue criminal prosecution or confiscation proceedings for transactions entered into prior to the coming into force of the 2016 Act, viz., 1.11.2016 – Consequently, all such prosecutions or confiscation proceedings stand quashed – Constitution of India – Article 20(1).Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988 – ss. 2(a), 3 – Mens rea, absence of – Effect of – Held: The criminal provision envisaged u/ss. 2(a) and 3 does not expressly contemplate mens rea – Mens rea is an essential ingredient of a criminal offence – Absence of mens rea creates a harsh provision having strict liability –Mere fact that the object of the statute is to promote welfare activities or to eradicate a grave social evil which by itself is not decisive of the question as to whether the element of a guilty mind is excluded from the ingredients of an offence – Mens rea by necessary implication may be excluded from a statute only where it is absolutely clear that implementation of the object of the statute would otherwise be defeated – The language of s. 2(a) coupled with s. 3, completely ignores the aspect of mens rea, as it intends to criminalize the very act of one person paying consideration for acquisition of property for another person – The 1988 law was envisaged on the touchstone of strict liability.Judicial Review– Law with respect to testing the unconstitutionality of a statutory instrument – Held: Constitutional Courts can test constitutionality of legislative instruments (statute and delegated legislations) both on procedure as well as substantive nature of these instruments – The test should be based on a combined reading of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution – Constitution of India – Articles 14, 19, 21. Doctrines/Principles – Doctrine of manifest arbitrariness– Discussed.Interpretation of Statutes – Law declared unconstitutional – Effect of – Held: Such a declaration would render the law not to exist in the law books since its inception – It is only a limited exception under Constitutional law, or when substantial actions have been undertaken under such unconstitutional laws that going back to the original position would be next to impossible – In those cases alone, would this Court take recourse to the concept of ‘prospective overruling’.Constitution of India – Retroactive/retrospective legislations – Legislature’s power to enact – Held: Legislature has power to enact retroactive/retrospective civil legislations under the Constitution – However, Article 20(1) mandates that no law mandating a punitive provision can be enacted retrospectively – A punitive provision cannot be couched as a civil provision to by-pass the mandate under Article 20(1) of the Constitution which follows the settled legal principle that “what cannot be done directly, cannot be done indirectly”. Words and Phrases– “Forfeiture”, “Benami”, “Benami transaction”, “Benamidar/ostensible owner”– Discussed.
Judge	Honble Mr. Justice N.V. Ramana
Neutral Citation	2022 INSC 853
Petitioner	Union Of India & Anr.
Respondent	M/s. Ganpati Dealcom Pvt. Ltd.
SCR	[2022] 12 S.C.R. 320
Judgement Date	2022-08-23
Case Number	5783

Sl.	Authority	Responsibilities	Communication Details
1	Ministry of Education (GoI), Department of Higher Education	Sanctioning Authority	https://www.education.gov.in/ict-initiatives
2	Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	Host Institute of the Project: The host institute of the project is responsible for providing infrastructure support and hosting the project	https://www.iitkgp.ac.in
3	National Digital Library of India Office, Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	The administrative and infrastructural headquarters of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in
4	Project PI / Joint PI	Principal Investigator and Joint Principal Investigators of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in Prof. Saswat Chakrabarti will be added soon
5	Website/Portal (Helpdesk)	Queries regarding NDLI and its services	support@ndl.gov.in
6	Contents and Copyright Issues	Queries related to content curation and copyright issues	content@ndl.gov.in
7	National Digital Library of India Club (NDLI Club)	Queries related to NDLI Club formation, support, user awareness program, seminar/symposium, collaboration, social media, promotion, and outreach	clubsupport@ndl.gov.in
8	Digital Preservation Centre (DPC)	Assistance with digitizing and archiving copyright-free printed books	dpc@ndl.gov.in
9	IDR Setup or Support	Queries related to establishment and support of Institutional Digital Repository (IDR) and IDR workshops	idr@ndl.gov.in

Union of India & Anr. Vs. M/s. Ganpati Dealcom Pvt. Ltd.

Please Log-in to view this content

M/s Fair Communication and Consultants & Anr. Vs. Surendra Kerdile

Sri Marcel Martins Vs. M. Printer & Ors.

Samittri Devi and Anr. Vs. Sampuran Singh and Anr.

Smt. Rebti Devi Vs. Ram Dutt and Anr. Etc.

Nand Kishore Mehra Vs. Sushila Mehra

M/s Ganpati Rv-talleres Alegria Track Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India and Anr.

G. Mahalingappa Vs. G.m. Savitha

M/s Delhi Airtech Services Pvt. Ltd & Anr. Vs. State of U.p. & Anr

M/s. Z. Engineers Construction Pvt. Ltd. & Anr Vs. Bipin Bihari Behera & Ors.

Union of India & Anr. Vs. M/s. Ganpati Dealcom Pvt. Ltd.

Union of India & Anr. Vs. M/s. Ganpati Dealcom Pvt. Ltd.

Please Log-in to view this content

Similar Documents

M/s Fair Communication and Consultants & Anr. Vs. Surendra Kerdile

Sri Marcel Martins Vs. M. Printer & Ors.

Samittri Devi and Anr. Vs. Sampuran Singh and Anr.

Smt. Rebti Devi Vs. Ram Dutt and Anr. Etc.

Nand Kishore Mehra Vs. Sushila Mehra

M/s Ganpati Rv-talleres Alegria Track Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India and Anr.

G. Mahalingappa Vs. G.m. Savitha

M/s Delhi Airtech Services Pvt. Ltd & Anr. Vs. State of U.p. & Anr

M/s. Z. Engineers Construction Pvt. Ltd. & Anr Vs. Bipin Bihari Behera & Ors.

Union of India & Anr. Vs. M/s. Ganpati Dealcom Pvt. Ltd.