{"file_name": "2024_10_2183_2186_EN.pdf", "text": "[2024] 10 S.C.R. 2183 : 2024 INSC 799\n\nUnion of India & Anr. \nv. \nM/s Ganpati Dealcom Pvt. Ltd.\n\nReview Petition (Civil) No. 359 of 2023 \nin \nCivil Appeal No. 5783 of 2022\n\n18 October 2024\n\n[Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, CJI,  \nPamidighantam Sri Narasimha, Manoj Misra, JJ.]\n\nIssue for Consideration\n\nWhether  a  challenge  to  the  constitutional  validity  of  a  statutory \nprovision  can  be  adjudicated  upon  in  the  absence  of  a  lis  and \ncontest between the parties.\n\nHeadnotes†\n\nGround  for  recall  for  judgment  –  Supreme  Court  declared \nunamended provisions of the Prohibition of Benami Property \nTransactions Act 1988 unconstitutional – Held not permissible – \nThere  was  no  challenge  to  the  constitutional  validity  of  the \nprovisions – No adjudication on the constitutional validity of \na law without there being any contest between the parties – \nSubmissions  by  the  parties  do  not  address  the  issue  of \nconstitutional validity. [Paras 5-6]\n\nEffect  of  recall  –  The  recalled  proceedings  shall  stand \nrestored for fresh adjudication – Where any other proceedings \nhave been disposed of by relying on the judgment that has \nbeen  recalled  –  Aggrieved  party  may  seek  review  of  such \nproceedings. [Paras 6-7]\n\nHeld:  (1) A  challenge  to  the  constitutional  validity  of  a  statutory \nprovision cannot be adjudicated upon in the absence of a lis and \ncontest  between  the  parties.  [Paras  5-6];  (2)  Recall  of  judgment \nis permissible where a judgment adjudicated the challenge to the \nconstitutional  validity  of  a  statutory  provision  without  a  lis  and \ncontest between the parties. [Paras 6-7]\n\nCase Law Cited\n\nUnion  of  India  and  Another  v.  Ganpati  Dealcom  Private  Ltd,   \n2022 INSC 853 – recalled.\n\n\f2184 \n\n[2024] 10 S.C.R.\n\nList of Acts\n\nBenami  Transactions  (Prohibition)  Amendment  Act,  2016; \nProhibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988.\n\nList of Keywords\n\nConstitutional validity; Without contest; Without lis; Recall; Review.\n\nCase Arising From\n\nINHERENT JURISDICTION: Review Petition (Civil) No. 359 of 2023\n\nIn\n\nCivil Appeal No. 5783 of 2022\n\nFrom the Judgment and Order dated 23.08.2022 of the Supreme \nCourt of India in C.A. No. 5783 of 2022.\n\nAppearances for Parties\n\nTushar  Mehta,  Solicitor  General,  Suryaprakash  V  Raju, A.S.G., \nVikramjit Bannerjee, Siddharth Sinha, Zoheb Hussain, S A Haseeb, \nMrs. Aakansha Kaul, Bhuvan Mishra, Ritwiz Rishabh, Kanu Agarwal, \nRaj Bahadur Yadav, Advs. for the Petitioners.\n\nAjay Vohra, Ms. Manisha T Karia, Sr. Advs., Ankit Anandraj Shah, \nAniket, Ms. Bhoomija Verma, Abhimanyu Singh, Shantanu Singh, \nRavi Sehgal, Pai Amit, Deepin Deepak Sahni, Ms. Ananya Arora, \nMs.  Shreya  Gupta, Anandh  K,  Ms.  Iyer  Shruti  Gopal, Advs.  for \nthe Respondent.\n\nJudgment / Order of the Supreme Court\n\nOrder\n\n1.  We  have  heard  Mr  Tushar  Mehta,  Solicitor  General  appearing  on \nbehalf  of  the  Union  of  India,  and  Mr Ajay  Vohra,  senior  counsel \nappearing on behalf of the respondent.\n\n2.  The review has been sought in these proceedings of the judgment \nof a three-Judge Bench of this Court in Union of India and Another \nv  Ganpati  Dealcom  Private  Ltd.1  The  only  question  which  was \nframed for consideration by this Court was in the following terms:\n\n1 \n\n[2022] 12 SCR 320 : (2023) 3 SCC 315\n\nDigital Supreme Court Reports\f[2024] 10 S.C.R.  \n\n2185\n\n\"3.  The short legal question which arises for this Court’s \nconsideration  is  whether  the  Prohibition  of  Benami \nProperty Transactions Act, 1988 (for short “the 1988 \nAct”),  as  amended  by  the  Benami  Transactions \n(Prohibition) Amendment Act,  2016  (for  short  “the \n2016 Act”) has a prospective effect. Although a purely \nlegal question arises in this appeal, it is necessary to \nhave  a  brief  factual  background  in  mind  before  we \nadvert to the analysis.”\n\n3.  The  conclusion  which  was  arrived  at  by  the  Court,  was  in  the \n\nfollowing terms:\n\n127.1. Section  3(2)  (sic  Section  3)  of  the  unamended  1988 Act  is \ndeclared  as  unconstitutional  for  being  manifestly  arbitrary. \nAccordingly, Section 3(2) of the 2016 Act is also unconstitutional \nas it is violative of Article 20(1) of the Constitution.\n\n127.2. In rem forfeiture provision under Section 5 of the unamended \n1988 Act, prior to the 2016 Amendment Act, was unconstitutional \nfor being manifestly arbitrary.\n\n127.3. The 2016 Amendment Act was not merely procedural, rather, \n\nprescribed substantive provisions.\n\n127.4. In rem forfeiture provision under Section 5 of the 2016 Act, \nbeing  punitive  in  nature,  can  only  be  applied  prospectively \nand not retroactively. \n\n127.5. The authorities concerned cannot initiate or continue criminal \nprosecution  or  confiscation  proceedings  for  transactions \nentered  into  prior  to  the  coming  into  force  of  the  2016 Act \nviz. 25-10-2016. As a consequence of the above declaration, \nall such prosecutions or confiscation proceedings shall stand \nquashed. \n\n127.6. As  this  Court  is  not  concerned  with  the  constitutionality  of \nsuch independent forfeiture proceedings contemplated under \nthe 2016 Amendment Act on the other grounds, the aforesaid \nquestions  are  left  open  to  be  adjudicated  in  appropriate \nproceedings.”\n\n4.  The Court has declared Section 3(2) of the unamended provisions \nof  the  Prohibition  of  Benami  Property  Transactions Act  1988  as \n\nUnion of India & Anr. v. M/s Ganpati Dealcom Pvt. Ltd.\f2186 \n\n[2024] 10 S.C.R.\n\nunconstitutional  for  being  manifestly  arbitrary  and  as  violative  of \nArticle 20(1) of the Constitution. The provisions of Section 5 of the \nunamended Act, prior to the Amendment of 2016, have been declared \nto be unconstitutional on the ground that they are manifestly arbitrary.\n\n5. \n\nIt  is  not  disputed  that  there  was  no  challenge  to  the  constitutional \nvalidity  of  the  unamended  provisions.  This  is  also  clear  from  the \nformulation of the question which arose for consideration before the \nBench  in  paragraph  3  of  the  judgment,  which  has  been  extracted \nabove. In the submissions of parties which have been recorded in \nthe  judgment,  the  issue  of  constitutional  validity  was  not  squarely \naddressed. \n\n6.  A challenge to the constitutional validity of a statutory provision cannot \nbe  adjudicated  upon  in  the  absence  of  a  lis  and  contest  between \nthe parties. We accordingly allow the review petition and recall the \njudgment dated 23 August 2022. Civil Appeal No 5783 of 2022 shall \nstand  restored  to  file  for  fresh  adjudication  before  a  Bench  to  be \nnominated by the Chief Justice of India on the administrative side.\n\n7.  Where any other proceedings have been disposed of by relying on \nthe judgment of this Court in Ganpati Dealcom Private Ltd (supra), \nliberty is granted to the aggrieved party to seek a review in view of \nthe present judgment.\n\n8.  Pending application, if any, stands disposed of.\n\nResult of the case:  Review Petition (Civil) No 359 of 2023 allowed;  \nCivil Appeal No. 5783 of 2022 restored to file for \nfresh adjudication.\n\n†Headnotes prepared by:  Ankitesh Ojha, Hony. Associate Editor \n(Verified by: Abhinav Mukerji, Sr. Adv.)\n\nDigital Supreme Court Reports\f"}