NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Tuesday agreed to consider the CentreтАЩs submissions for an open court hearing of its plea seeking review of the judgement by which several provisions of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Amendment Act, 2016 were struck down.
A three-judge bench headed by then CJI N V Ramana, since retired, on August 23, 2022 had struck down section 3(2) and section 5 of Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988, and one of the provisions which provided for the punishment of a maximum jail term of three years or a fine or both for those indulging in тАШbenamiтАЩ transactions.
The top court had also held that the amended Benami law of 2016 did not have retrospective application and the authorities cannot initiate or continue criminal prosecution or confiscation proceedings for transactions entered into prior to the coming into force of the legislation.
The Centre, represented by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, on Tuesday urged a bench comprising Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud and Justice P S Narasimha that its review plea be heard in open court, keeping in mind the importance of the issue.
тАЬThis is an unusual request. We seek an open court hearing of the review. Due to this judgement, a lot of orders are being passed even though some of the provisions of the Benami Act were not even under challenge. Like the retrospectivity could not have been looked into (by the SC bench),тАЭ the top law officer said. тАЬWe will consider it,тАЭ the CJI said.
Except death penalty cases, review pleas are usually decided by judges concerned in chambers by circulation. The top court, on August 23 last year, struck down two provisions of the amended Benami law of 2016.The court had termed the provisions as тАЬunconstitutionalтАЭ on the grounds of тАЬmanifestly arbitraryтАЭ, saying they were vague and arbitrary. It had said the continued presence of an unconstitutional law on the statute book did not prevent it from holding that such unconstitutional laws cannot enure to the benefit of or be utilised to retrospectively amend laws to cure existing constitutional defects.
A three-judge bench headed by then CJI N V Ramana, since retired, on August 23, 2022 had struck down section 3(2) and section 5 of Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988, and one of the provisions which provided for the punishment of a maximum jail term of three years or a fine or both for those indulging in тАШbenamiтАЩ transactions.
The top court had also held that the amended Benami law of 2016 did not have retrospective application and the authorities cannot initiate or continue criminal prosecution or confiscation proceedings for transactions entered into prior to the coming into force of the legislation.
The Centre, represented by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, on Tuesday urged a bench comprising Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud and Justice P S Narasimha that its review plea be heard in open court, keeping in mind the importance of the issue.
тАЬThis is an unusual request. We seek an open court hearing of the review. Due to this judgement, a lot of orders are being passed even though some of the provisions of the Benami Act were not even under challenge. Like the retrospectivity could not have been looked into (by the SC bench),тАЭ the top law officer said. тАЬWe will consider it,тАЭ the CJI said.
Except death penalty cases, review pleas are usually decided by judges concerned in chambers by circulation. The top court, on August 23 last year, struck down two provisions of the amended Benami law of 2016.The court had termed the provisions as тАЬunconstitutionalтАЭ on the grounds of тАЬmanifestly arbitraryтАЭ, saying they were vague and arbitrary. It had said the continued presence of an unconstitutional law on the statute book did not prevent it from holding that such unconstitutional laws cannot enure to the benefit of or be utilised to retrospectively amend laws to cure existing constitutional defects.
