Back
Supreme Court on Benami Appeals Pile-Up: But Can't Amend Law
In a development that exposes the chasm between judicial empathy and legislative inertia, the has acknowledged a “” in the mounting pendency of benami appeals before a solitary tribunal in New Delhi, yet made it clear that the Court cannot step into the legislature’s shoes to amend the statutory framework. The observation came during the hearing of a petition that sought to transfer jurisdiction over appeals under the (PBPT Act) from the Appellate Tribunal constituted under the (SAFEMA) to the (ITAT), or alternatively, to create regional benches across the country to ease the crushing burden on litigants. With more than 3,600 benami appeals languishing as of the start of this year, the case shines a harsh light on the procedural bottlenecks stifling the anti-black-money framework.
A Single Bench for an Entire Nation
The petition, argued by advocate , highlighted the absurdity of a system that forces all stakeholders – litigants, lawyers, chartered accountants, witnesses, and government officers – to travel to the national capital for every hearing. “The present Appellate Tribunal functions through a single bench in New Delhi,” Bansal told the Court, underscoring the logistical nightmare for parties from distant states. This centralization stands in stark contrast to the ITAT, which operates through multiple benches in almost all major cities, offering far greater accessibility and swifter disposal of cases.
The PBPT Act, enacted to curb benami transactions and the parking of unaccounted wealth in real estate and other assets, provides for an appeal against orders of the Initiating Officer or the Adjudicating Authority to the Appellate Tribunal. However, the Act designated the already-existing to hear these appeals, rather than creating a dedicated or multi-location forum. Over the years, as the government intensified its anti-benami drive, particularly after the 2016 amendments that provided the law real teeth, the number of prosecutions and surged – but the dispute resolution machinery remained frozen in time.
Shocking Statistics from Right to Information
The plea leaned heavily on hard data obtained through a Right to Information (RTI) reply dated . According to that response, as on January 1 of this year, 3,683 benami appeals were pending before the . Between 2018 and 2025, a total of 5,902 such appeals were instituted, while the tribunal managed to dispose of only 2,219 matters in the same period. The arithmetic is brutal: filings rose from a modest 212 in 2018 to a staggering 1,646 in 2025, an almost eight-fold increase that far outstripped disposal rates.
The pendency figures under all statutes administered by the painted an even grimmer picture, with total arrears touching 12,834 cases. For a single bench to handle this deluge while also dealing with matters under the , , and other economic laws is, to put it mildly, a recipe for systemic collapse. The RTI data became the factual bedrock on which the petitioners argued that the was being severely impaired by the geographical and functional limitations of the current forum.
The Supreme Court’s Hands Are Tied
When the matter came before the bench, the judges did not mince words about the merit of the concern. They reportedly observed that the situation raised a “” and that the petitioners had highlighted a serious problem worthy of remedial action. However, the Supreme Court was unequivocal in stating that it could not order a transfer of jurisdiction from one statutory tribunal to another, nor could it direct the government to create regional benches, because such measures would amount to rewriting the law.
“We can't amend the law; only Parliament can do that,” the Court observed, in effect drawing a red line around the . The sentiment echoes a recurring judicial refrain: courts can interpret statutes, read them down, or strike them down, but they cannot redraw legislative blueprints. The very architecture of the appellate mechanism under the PBPT Act is a creature of statute, and any alteration to the forum or its territorial reach calls for a legislative intervention.
This hands-off approach, while constitutionally sound, leaves litigants in a painful limbo. The Supreme Court’s observations, though not a formal judgment, serve as a powerful nudge to the executive and legislature. It is now for the Central Government to examine whether the benami appellate mechanism is serving the law’s objectives or whether it has become a bottleneck that ironically protects the very benami holders it seeks to penalize.
A Tale of Two Tribunals: SAFEMA vs. ITAT
The comparison between the SAFEMA Appellate Tribunal and the ITAT is instructive. The ITAT, established in 1941, has evolved into a decentralized body with benches in more than 30 cities, including multiple benches in larger metros. It disposes of tens of thousands of appeals annually and is staffed by a mix of judicial and accountant members who specialize in tax and commercial disputes. Its procedures are streamlined, and it has invested heavily in video conferencing and digital case management, especially post-pandemic.
In contrast, the was conceived for a narrow set of cases under a few anti-smuggling and confiscation laws, with far lower volumes. Its sudden expansion to cover benami matters – which now constitute the bulk of its docket – has exposed severe capacity constraints. Even if the government does not transfer jurisdiction outright, the option of constituting additional benches under the existing SAFEMA framework remains legally feasible but would still require a notification or amendment. The petitioner’s fallback request for regional benches implicitly recognized that tweaking the current system might be faster than a wholesale legislative overhaul.
Impact on Anti-Benami Enforcement
The pendency crunch carries significant implications for the anti-benami regime. When an appeal remains unresolved for years, and are effectively suspended in a state of limbo. The deterrence value of the law weakens, and genuine cases of black money parking may fail to culminate in timely punishment or recovery. Meanwhile, corporate entities and individuals caught in the net, including those who may later be exonerated, suffer prolonged uncertainty and reputational damage.
Practitioners in the field say that the single bench in Delhi has become a choke point. Hearing dates are spaced months apart, arguments stretch over multiple sessions because of the sheer volume, and judgments are delayed. For litigants from Kerala, West Bengal, or Rajasthan, the costs of travel, accommodation, and legal representation in the capital add a punishing premium to the pursuit of justice. Many small and medium businesses simply lack the resources to sustain a multi-year battle in a remote forum, which can lead to coerced settlements or simply abandoning valid defenses.
The RTI data also raises a question about the government’s own commitment: if it is serious about the anti-benami drive, why has it not invested in the adjudicatory infrastructure to process the cases it generates? The exponential rise in appeal filings shows that investigation and prosecution functions are working; what is broken is the disposal end. Legal observers note that without a remedy, the entire system risks becoming a monument to good intentions, clogged by its own success.
What Lies Ahead: The Legislative Remedy
The Supreme Court’s remarks, while not binding, are likely to catalyze discussions within the and the . Past instances show that the government often responds to judicial nudges by introducing amendments, albeit at its own pace. For instance, the was amended to increase the number of benches after similar concerns about case backlogs. A similar approach could be taken here, either by conferring appellate jurisdiction on the ITAT through a statutory amendment, or by empowering the central government to establish additional SAFEMA benches by notification.
Legal professionals are already debating the contours of such a reform. Transferring benami appeals to the ITAT would bring specialization – since benami transactions are inherently linked to tax evasion – and instant scalability. Critics, however, caution that the ITAT is already burdened with its own pendency, though its decentralized model is far better suited to absorb additional work. The alternative of creating regional SAFEMA benches would preserve the existing statutory scheme but would necessitate fresh appointments of members and logistical setup, which might take longer.
In the interim, the bar and industry bodies are likely to amplify the demand for immediate solutions such as mandatory video conferencing for all benami appeals, virtual filing, and the deployment of retired members to clear the backlog. The pandemic demonstrated that justice delivery can be digitized to a significant extent; extending that infrastructure to the could offer a short-term relief while the legislative wheels grind forward.
A Timely Reminder from the Highest Court
The Supreme Court’s candid acknowledgment of the problem, coupled with its refusal to usurp legislative power, reinforces a vital constitutional principle. It tells the executive that the judiciary will not always be able to provide a crutch for legislative paralysis. The ball is now squarely in the government’s court. For the thousands of litigants – and countless more future appellants – who find themselves tethered to a single courtroom in the national capital, the hope is that this judicial nudge will accelerate what common sense has long demanded: a fair, accessible, and efficient appellate machinery that matches the ambition of India’s benami law.
The case will continue, and the Supreme Court may eventually dispose of the petition with a or a request for an affidavit from the government. But regardless of the technical outcome, the damage – and the case for reform – has already been laid bare. As the pendency numbers mount with each passing month, the question is no longer whether the system is broken, but how long the government will allow it to stay that way.
