Corrupt public servants facing prosecution in disproportionate assets case can be forfeited of their illegally acquired wealth if convicted for the offence. This strong message came from the Supreme Court on Thursday in a landmark judgment upholding the constitutional validity of two laws passed in this regard by Bihar and Odisha Governments to curb corruption.
While the law will apply to the two States, the SC decision will pave the way for other States to launch similar legislations to tackle corruption at high places.
The public servants facing prosecution for possessing disproportionate assets had challenged the Orissa Special Courts Act 2006 and the Bihar Special Courts Act 2009 on the ground that confiscation of their property and wealth will amount to punishing an accused twice for an offence. They argued that under the provisions, the State could even forfeit the property and later not return the same even upon getting acquitted. While Orissa law applied to all public servants, Bihar law related to Group A officers.
Negating all apprehensions raised by the accused officers, the bench of Justices AR Dave and Dipak Misra said, “It is basically a confiscation which is interim in nature. Moreover, any order of confiscation is open to an appeal and the accused officer can present proof to show that the property or wealth is not a consequence of offence and get the property under confiscation released. Therefore, it is not a punishment as envisaged by law.” Moreover, if the officer is acquitted by High Court, the State will return the property and wealth that got seized.
Although the accused had raised several constitutional grounds such as Article 14 (right against discrimination on ground of equality) and Article 21 (right to life), the bench viewed it from the perspective of rising corruption in society and need to effectively curb it with stringent steps.
“The legislative intent is to curb corruption at high places and require the accused persons to face trial in the Special Court constituted under the Orissa Act in a speedier manner and also to see that the beneficiaries of ill-gotten property or money do not enjoy the property or money during trial,” noted Justice Misra who authored the 200-page judgment.
Moreover, there is provision under the two laws where confiscation need not be immediate on lodging of FIR as certain time could be granted to the officer to vacate the property in question. In case he continued to stay, the state had power to use force to evict him. Agreeing with the intent of the state to launch such a drastic legislation, the bench said, “A person cannot be allowed to indulge in corruption and conceive of protection to his dwelling house after a finding is recorded in the proceeding for confiscation that it is constructed or purchased by way of corrupt means.”