What is holding back information on black money, asks court

Issues involved in the case are serious and of larger dimension: judge

January 15, 2011 01:28 am | Updated November 17, 2021 06:54 am IST - New Delhi

The Supreme Court on Friday asked the Centre to consider revealing the names of those who have deposited their black money in the Liechtenstein Bank in Germany now that the German government had furnished the details.

Justice B. Sudershan Reddy, heading a Bench with Justice S.S. Nijjar, did not agree with Solicitor-General Gopal Subramaniam's submissions that being privileged information, it could not be disclosed. When the S-G said the government had got the details but did not want to reveal them, Justice Reddy asked him: “Why are you [Centre] reluctant to disclose the names. What is the difficulty in disclosing the information? What is the privilege you are claiming for not disclosing? Issues involved in this case are serious and of larger dimension. It is not only about tax avoidance but other issues are also involved.”

The Bench was hearing a petition filed by senior advocate Ram Jethmalani and others alleging inaction by the government in getting back the black money stashed away in foreign banks.

The S-G submitted that he would take instructions from the government on whether the names could be disclosed or not and inform the court on the next date of hearing.

Not applicable

Earlier, senior counsel Anil Divan, appearing for the petitioners, questioned the government taking shelter under the Double Tax Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) for not probing the money deposited with the Liechtenstein Bank. He contended that the DTAA did not apply to Indians having accounts in the foreign bank. He said the government was not serious about pursuing the issue, and despite the German authorities providing all the information, it had done nothing for the last two years. The Centre had claimed privilege over some documents and said it could not make them public as it would jeopardise the investigation carried out so far. This argument could not be accepted, he said.

The Bench posted the matter to January 19, when the S-G would respond to the court's queries.

0 / 0
Sign in to unlock member-only benefits!
  • Access 10 free stories every month
  • Save stories to read later
  • Access to comment on every story
  • Sign-up/manage your newsletter subscriptions with a single click
  • Get notified by email for early access to discounts & offers on our products
Sign in

Comments

Comments have to be in English, and in full sentences. They cannot be abusive or personal. Please abide by our community guidelines for posting your comments.

We have migrated to a new commenting platform. If you are already a registered user of The Hindu and logged in, you may continue to engage with our articles. If you do not have an account please register and login to post comments. Users can access their older comments by logging into their accounts on Vuukle.