Delhi High Court closes proceedings against AAP Minister Satyendar Jain under amended benami law

The case against Jain relates to a 2017 complaint to the Lokayukta seeking investigation into alleged benami transactions

October 11, 2022 03:00 am | Updated 02:07 pm IST

Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leader and Delhi Minister Satyendar Jain. File

Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leader and Delhi Minister Satyendar Jain. File | Photo Credit: Shiv Kumar Pushpakar

The Delhi High Court on Monday closed a proceeding against Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leader and Delhi Minister Satyendar Jain under the amended benami transactions law in consonance with a Supreme Court ruling.

The case against Mr. Jain relates to a 2017 complaint to the Lokayukta seeking investigation into alleged benami transactions by the Delhi Minister. Mr. Jain had moved the High Court against the initiation of proceedings under the under the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Amendment Act, 2016.

In August, the Supreme Court had ruled that Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Amendment Act, 2016 did not have retrospective application and the authorities could not initiate or continue criminal prosecution or confiscation proceedings for transactions entered into prior to the coming into force of the legislation.

Also Read | SC to hear on Oct. 11 Satyendar Jain’s plea challenging transfer of bail to another court

“Accordingly, and in view of the law as declared by the Supreme Court, the writ petitions are allowed and all proceedings initiated under the enactment shall consequently stand closed,” Justice Yashwant Varma said on Monday.

On September 20, the High Court had ordered that “no action, coercive or otherwise, shall be taken against the petitioners here under the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Amendment Act, 2016” till further orders.

According to Mr. Jain, the alleged benami transactions, from the proceeds of which certain attached assets were claimed to have been purchased, took place between 2011 and March 31, 2016, and so the amendment which came into effect in November 2016 would not apply.

His counsel had earlier claimed the benami proceedings were in the nature of “political persecution”.

Top News Today

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.