UNION OF INDIA & ANRversusM/S GANPATI DEALCOM PVT. LTD.

         [2024] 10 S.C.R. 2183 : 2024 INSC 799

                 Union of India & Anr.
                           v.
             M/s Ganpati Dealcom Pvt. Ltd.
           Review Petition (Civil) No. 359 of 2023
                             in
               Civil Appeal No. 5783 of 2022
                        18 October 2024
      [Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, CJI,
 Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, Manoj Misra, JJ.]


                    Issue for Consideration
Whether a challenge to the constitutional validity of a statutory
provision can be adjudicated upon in the absence of a lis and
contest between the parties.

                           Headnotes†
Ground for recall for judgment – Supreme Court declared
unamended provisions of the Prohibition of Benami Property
Transactions Act 1988 unconstitutional – Held not permissible –
There was no challenge to the constitutional validity of the
provisions – No adjudication on the constitutional validity of
a law without there being any contest between the parties –
Submissions by the parties do not address the issue of
constitutional validity. [Paras 5-6]
Effect of recall – The recalled proceedings shall stand
restored for fresh adjudication – Where any other proceedings
have been disposed of by relying on the judgment that has
been recalled – Aggrieved party may seek review of such
proceedings. [Paras 6-7]
Held: (1) A challenge to the constitutional validity of a statutory
provision cannot be adjudicated upon in the absence of a lis and
contest between the parties. [Paras 5-6]; (2) Recall of judgment
is permissible where a judgment adjudicated the challenge to the
constitutional validity of a statutory provision without a lis and
contest between the parties. [Paras 6-7]

                        Case Law Cited
Union of India and Another v. Ganpati Dealcom Private Ltd,
2022 INSC 853 – recalled.
2184                                                          [2024] 10 S.C.R.

                           Digital Supreme Court Reports


                                            List of Acts
      Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Amendment Act, 2016;
      Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988.

                                     List of Keywords
      Constitutional validity; Without contest; Without lis; Recall; Review.

                                    Case Arising From
      INHERENT JURISDICTION: Review Petition (Civil) No. 359 of 2023
      In
      Civil Appeal No. 5783 of 2022
      From the Judgment and Order dated 23.08.2022 of the Supreme
      Court of India in C.A. No. 5783 of 2022.

                                Appearances for Parties
      Tushar Mehta, Solicitor General, Suryaprakash V Raju, A.S.G.,
      Vikramjit Bannerjee, Siddharth Sinha, Zoheb Hussain, S A Haseeb,
      Mrs. Aakansha Kaul, Bhuvan Mishra, Ritwiz Rishabh, Kanu Agarwal,
      Raj Bahadur Yadav, Advs. for the Petitioners.
      Ajay Vohra, Ms. Manisha T Karia, Sr. Advs., Ankit Anandraj Shah,
      Aniket, Ms. Bhoomija Verma, Abhimanyu Singh, Shantanu Singh,
      Ravi Sehgal, Pai Amit, Deepin Deepak Sahni, Ms. Ananya Arora,
      Ms. Shreya Gupta, Anandh K, Ms. Iyer Shruti Gopal, Advs. for
      the Respondent.

                     Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
                                              Order
1.    We have heard Mr Tushar Mehta, Solicitor General appearing on
      behalf of the Union of India, and Mr Ajay Vohra, senior counsel
      appearing on behalf of the respondent.
2.    The review has been sought in these proceedings of the judgment
      of a three-Judge Bench of this Court in Union of India and Another
      v Ganpati Dealcom Private Ltd.1 The only question which was
      framed for consideration by this Court was in the following terms:


1    [2022] 12 SCR 320 : (2023) 3 SCC 315
[2024] 10 S.C.R.                                                          2185

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


          "3.   The short legal question which arises for this Court’s
                consideration is whether the Prohibition of Benami
                Property Transactions Act, 1988 (for short “the 1988
                Act”), as amended by the Benami Transactions
                (Prohibition) Amendment Act, 2016 (for short “the
                2016 Act”) has a prospective effect. Although a purely
                legal question arises in this appeal, it is necessary to
                have a brief factual background in mind before we
                advert to the analysis.”
3.   The conclusion which was arrived at by the Court, was in the
     following terms:
     127.1. Section 3(2) (sic Section 3) of the unamended 1988 Act is
            declared as unconstitutional for being manifestly arbitrary.
            Accordingly, Section 3(2) of the 2016 Act is also unconstitutional
            as it is violative of Article 20(1) of the Constitution.
     127.2. In rem forfeiture provision under Section 5 of the unamended
            1988 Act, prior to the 2016 Amendment Act, was unconstitutional
            for being manifestly arbitrary.
     127.3. The 2016 Amendment Act was not merely procedural, rather,
            prescribed substantive provisions.
     127.4. In rem forfeiture provision under Section 5 of the 2016 Act,
            being punitive in nature, can only be applied prospectively
            and not retroactively.
     127.5. The authorities concerned cannot initiate or continue criminal
            prosecution or confiscation proceedings for transactions
            entered into prior to the coming into force of the 2016 Act
            viz. 25-10-2016. As a consequence of the above declaration,
            all such prosecutions or confiscation proceedings shall stand
            quashed.
     127.6. As this Court is not concerned with the constitutionality of
            such independent forfeiture proceedings contemplated under
            the 2016 Amendment Act on the other grounds, the aforesaid
            questions are left open to be adjudicated in appropriate
            proceedings.”
4.   The Court has declared Section 3(2) of the unamended provisions
     of the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act 1988 as
2186                                                               [2024] 10 S.C.R.

                          Digital Supreme Court Reports


     unconstitutional for being manifestly arbitrary and as violative of
     Article 20(1) of the Constitution. The provisions of Section 5 of the
     unamended Act, prior to the Amendment of 2016, have been declared
     to be unconstitutional on the ground that they are manifestly arbitrary.
5.   It is not disputed that there was no challenge to the constitutional
     validity of the unamended provisions. This is also clear from the
     formulation of the question which arose for consideration before the
     Bench in paragraph 3 of the judgment, which has been extracted
     above. In the submissions of parties which have been recorded in
     the judgment, the issue of constitutional validity was not squarely
     addressed.
6.   A challenge to the constitutional validity of a statutory provision cannot
     be adjudicated upon in the absence of a lis and contest between
     the parties. We accordingly allow the review petition and recall the
     judgment dated 23 August 2022. Civil Appeal No 5783 of 2022 shall
     stand restored to file for fresh adjudication before a Bench to be
     nominated by the Chief Justice of India on the administrative side.
7.   Where any other proceedings have been disposed of by relying on
     the judgment of this Court in Ganpati Dealcom Private Ltd (supra),
     liberty is granted to the aggrieved party to seek a review in view of
     the present judgment.
8.   Pending application, if any, stands disposed of.

     Result of the case: Review Petition (Civil) No 359 of 2023 allowed;
                          Civil Appeal No. 5783 of 2022 restored to file for
                          fresh adjudication.



     †
         Headnotes prepared by: Ankitesh Ojha, Hony. Associate Editor
                                 (Verified by: Abhinav Mukerji, Sr. Adv.)