Supreme Court on black money
Noted jurist and
former law minister Ram Jethmalani along with many other well
known citizens filed a Writ Petition (Civil)
No. 176 of 2009 in the Supreme Court of India seeking the court's
directions to help bring back black money stashed
in tax havens abroad
and initiate efforts to strengthen the governance framework to prevent further
creation of black money.
In January 2011, the
(SC) asked why the names of those who have stashed money in the Liechtenstein
Bank have not been disclosed. The court argued that the government should
be more forthcoming in releasing all available information on what it called a
"mind-boggling" amount of money that is believed to be held illegally
in foreign banks.
The SC on 4 July 2011, ordered the appointment
of a Special Investigating Team (SIT) headed by former SC judge BP Jeevan Reddy to act as a watch
dog and monitor investigations dealing with the black money. This body would
report to the SC directly
and no other agency will be involved in this. The two judge bench observed that
the failure of the government to control the phenomenon of black money is an
indication of weakness and softness of the government.
The issue of
unaccounted monies held by nationals, and other legal entities, in foreign
banks, is of primordial importance to the welfare of the citizens. The quantum
of such monies may be rough indicators of the weakness of the State, in terms of
both crime prevention, and also of tax collection. Depending on the volume of
such monies, and the number of incidents through which such monies are
generated and secreted away, it may very well reveal the degree of
"softness of the State."
— Justice B Sudershan
Reddy and Justice S S Nijjar, Supreme Court of India
The
government subsequently challenged this order through Interlocutory
Application No. 8 of 2011. The bench (consisting of Justice Altamas Kabir in
place of Justice B Sudershan Reddy, since Justice Reddy retired) on 23
September 2011 pronounced a split verdict on whether government plea is
maintainable. Justice Kabir said that the plea is maintainable
while Justice Nijjar said it is not. Due to this split verdict, the matter will
be referred
to a third judge
In April 2014, Indian Government disclosed to the Supreme
Court the names of 26 people who had accounts in banks in
Liechtenstein, as revealed to India by German authorities.
Post a Comment