The Supreme Court on Wednesday reserved its judgement in the black money case after a marathon hearing stretching several sessions during the past six months when the government came under fire on numerous occasions for the “failure” of its agencies to investigate country’s biggest unaccounted money trail allegedly involving
Pune stud farm owner Hasan Ali Khan and his associates. A bench of Justices B. Sudershan Reddy and S.S. Nijjar would deal with various aspects of the black money, which include a direction to the government to take decisive steps to bring back the estimated $1.5 trillions stashed by Indians in tax havens, whether the case needed to be handed over to a special investigating team (SIT), or the 10-member “multi-disciplinary committee” set up by the government would be sufficient to handle the complex issue.
The SC would also consider whether an four-member independent body of a retired Supreme Court and high court judge, a retired IAS officer and a former IPS officer of impeccable integrity be created to supervise the probe under constant monitoring by the apex court as these aspects were argued in details after Solicitor General Gopal Subramaniam had sought repeated adjournments to seek government instructions. Though the Enforcement Directorate’s complaint against Hasan Ali filed more than four years ago set the ball rolling on the black money issue after the agency came across certain documents showing deposits of more than $ 8 billion in his several accounts with Switzerland’s leading bank UBS and income tax authorities assessing his tax liabilities over `70,000 crore, but it was a PIL by noted lawyer Ram Jethmalani, which activated the top court to seek reports after reports from the government. The government was also forced to submit to the court names of 26 Indians “under seal”, having secret accounts in LGT bank in Liechtenstein provided by Germany but the Centre reserved its right to disclose them citing its commitment under the double taxation avoidance treaty (DTAT).
The apex would decide whether these names could be made public despite the government’s resistance as Jethmalani’s counsel Anil Diwan claimed that DTAT provisions would not apply to them as the information was provide by Germany as an open offer to supply such information to several other countries. While concluding the arguments, the SG tried to defend the government decision creating the “multi-disciplinary committee” saying the black money issue was “very complex” and required multiple handling to “give requisite impetus to go ahead with the matter and help in unearth the unaccounted money”.
Since the probe involved several aspects, ED has been asked by the government to withhold any adjudication proceedings against Hasan Ali. While opposing constitution of SIT, the government law officer pleaded that the court to give a chance to the “multi-disciplinary committee” and if it failed to deliver, then any other “methodology of investigation” could be considered.
Besides, the new tax-exchange information devise under DTAT being put in place by the government also needed to be given a try, SG said adding “there is no attempt by the government either to mislead the court, or it should not be seen as defending or protecting any one.”
The SG also cited the example of 2G case being probed by multiple agencies — CBI, ED and IT department — to justify the investigation by multi-disciplinary panel.
The 10-member panel headed by the secretary, department of revenue, will comprise of Deputy Governor Reserve Bank of India, director of Intelligence Bureau, Enforcement Director, CBI director, chairman of Central Board of Direct Taxes, director of General Revenue Intelligence, Director, Finance Intelligence Unit and joint secretary, foreign trade in CBDT. The investigation would be monitored by a team of home secretary, foreign secretary, defence secretary and secretary (revenue) in the Cabinet Secretariat.
Earlier, Mr Diwan questioned the “credibility” of the multi-disciplinary panel as well as the government taking shelter under the DTAT, stating that it was nothing but “eye-wash” as the panel headed by bureaucrats would be hardly have the “courage” to go against the powerful politicians, who allegedly were behind Hasan Ali and had been protecting him all these years.
Neither would the panel be able to go on trailing the “secret accounts” of the politicians and other powerful people getting “political patronage”, Mr Diwan said while emphasising the demand for setting up of the SIT.
Mr Diwan objected to drawing the analogy with 2G case, stating that the FIR in the case had already been registered, there was a report of CAG on financial bungling there was not an “abnormal” delay of more than 4 years as was witnessed in Hasan Ali case.