Lifting the veil of secrecy that the Union government has thrown over the identities of some influential Indians who have stashed huge money in a German bank, the Supreme Court has rubbished the Centre’s claim that it was proscribed from unravelling their names under the double taxation treaty between the two democratic countries.
In a 53-page detailed interim order, the court on Monday termed the government’s denial as violating the people’s right to know under Article 21 and said the treaty does not “even remotely touch upon information regarding Indian citizens’ bank accounts in Liechtenstein that Germany has shared with India”.
It doesn’t have bearing upon the lawsuits filed by a group of citizens seeking direction to get the Indian money back from Germany, investigate its source and punish the hoarders, if needed.
After examining the treaty and its provision that the government harped on for concealing the names, a bench of justices B Sudershan Reddy and SS Nijjar said, “We are convinced that the said agreement, by itself, does not ‘proscribe’ the disclosure of the relevant documents and details, including the names of various bank account holders in Liechtenstein.
It is ‘disingenuous’ for the government to “repeatedly claim that it is unable to reveal the documents and names on the ground that they are ‘proscribed’ under the treaty.
“It does not matter that Germany itself may have asked India to treat the information shared as being subject to the confidentiality and secrecy clause of the double taxation agreement,’’ the court said while asserting that it’s its constitutional duty to protect the interests of the country, something which had been ignored by the State for the past three decades.
Virtually quashing the government’s interpretation of the treaty, the judges held that “no treaty can be entered into, or interpreted, such that constitutional fealty is derogated from”.
“The redundancy, that the Union of India presses, with respect to the last sentence of Article 26(1) of the double taxation agreement with Germany, necessarily transgresses upon the boundaries erected by our Constitution. It cannot be permitted,” the top court held.
On the disclosure of names and identities of certain financially and politically influential people who have stashed billions of dollars in the foreign bank, judges asked the government to hand over all the material it has to the high powered panel headed by a former SC judge B P Jeevan Reddy.
Except the names of individuals who have accounts in banks of Liechtenstein and whose identity was revealed by the Germany in connection with the investigations or inquiries that are “still in progress’’ and so far no wrong doing has been traced to them wouldn’t be given to the panel.
However, the immunity clause wouldn’t act in some other instances.
All the names of individuals having bank accounts in Liechtenstein and against whom investigations have been concluded, either partially or wholly, and they have been given the show cause notices and facing the proceedings would be known to the panel.
