New Delhi: The Supreme Court has upheld the constitutional validity of two laws of Orissa and Bihar which allow confiscation of properties of accused in graft cases, including those occupying high public or political office, saying a ‘‘social calamity’’ like graft has become an ‘‘economic terror.’’
A bench of justices Dipak Misra and AR Dave upheld the validity of Orissa Special Courts Act, 2006 and Bihar Special Courts Act, 2009, passed by the two state assemblies, which allow formation of special courts and confiscation of property, saying the laws do not violate statutory norms.
‘‘In a way, corruption becomes a national economic terror. This social calamity warrants a different control and hence, the legislature comes up with special legislation with stringent provisions,’’ the bench said.
It said establishment of Special Courts under these Acts were ‘‘not violative of Article 247 of the Constitution.’’
The bench observed this in its verdict passed on a bunch of pleas, challenging the provisions of confiscation of properties even before conviction.
‘‘The Chapter III of the Acts providing for confiscation of property or money or both, neither violates Article 14 nor Article 20(1) or Article 21 of the Constitution,’’ the bench said.
It rejected the submission of petitioners that confiscation of properties before conviction was a pre-trial punishment.
‘‘It is basically a confiscation which is interim in nature. Hence, it is not a punishment as per law and it is difficult to accept the submission that it is a pre-trial punishment and, accordingly, we repel the said submission,’’ the bench said.
The provisions target persons who have assets disproportionate to their sources of income, which is conceptually a period offence and not incident specific where proof of corruption is required.
‘‘This does not require proof of corruption in specific acts, but has reference to assets accumulated and known sources of income within a period,’’ it said. The bench rejected the contention that a special class was being created to try them which is violative of Art 14.
‘‘In the context of the Orissa Act, it is associated with high public or political office occupied by people who control dynamics of power which can be a weapon to amass wealth through illegal means,’’ it said.
‘‘In such a situation, the argument that they being put in a different class and tried in a separate special court solely because the alleged offence, if nothing else, is a self-defeating one.
‘‘The submission that there is a sub-classification does not remotely touch the boundaries of Article 14; and certainly does not encroach thereon to invite its wrath of the equality clause,” the bench said.
It said the state legislature, keeping in view accumulation of extensive properties disproportionate to the known sources of income by persons who had held or are holding high political and public offices, thought it appropriate to provide special courts for speedy trial for certain class of offences and confiscation of the properties involved.
Referring to the verdicts passed earlier by the apex court, the bench said, ‘‘Immoral acquisition of wealth destroys the energy of the people believing in honesty, and history records with agony how they have suffered; and the only redeeming fact is that collective sensibility respects such suffering as it is in consonance with the constitutional morality”. PTI
Trump Trapped
It is the fifth week running since US President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu launched the war...
Read moreDetails
