Captain Amarinder’s ‘secret’ foreign asset files: High Court allows ED to access them

The court allowed the ED to inspect the complaint records but added that the information cannot be made public without proper legal permission.

The judge decided three interconnected petitions, one filed by Amarinder and two by Raninder together, as they raised common questions of law.

The case originates from 2016 complaints by the Income Tax (IT) Department accusing Amarinder and Raninder of tax evasion and concealment of foreign assets, invoking Section 277 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and Indian Penal Code provisions on giving false information and perjury.

Quoting from the IT Department’s complaint, the high court noted, “The Income Tax Department received credible information from foreign authorities through official channels that the accused is the beneficiary of foreign assets maintained and controlled through foreign business entities… including bank accounts with HSBC Private Bank (SUISSE) S.A, Geneva, Switzerland.”

Swiss accounts, Dubai property flagged

The complaint also alleged links to Jacaranda Trust and related entities, as well as a property in Dubai. Summons were issued to Amarinder on March 30, 2016, seeking details about his association with the trust and the P29, Marina Mansions property in Dubai, which records suggest was transferred on his request.

The data came from “master sheets” received from France on June 28, 2011, under the DTAA, and included files certified under the Indian Evidence Act.

Captain Amarinder and Raninder had opposed ED access, claiming the documents contained “secret information” shared by France under a confidentiality clause (Article 28) of the DTAA, which restricts disclosure to tax authorities and courts. They argued that the ED, not being the original recipient, could not be given access, and relied on a Supreme Court principle that “what cannot be done directly cannot be done indirectly”.

Justice Dahiya rejected the arguments of secrecy, upholding a Ludhiana court’s orders permitting ED inspection. He relied on Rule 2 of Part-C, Chapter 16 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court Rules, which allows even “a stranger to a case” to inspect records for sufficient cause, subject to court approval.

Justice Dahiya also cited the Supreme Court ruling in Ram Jethmalani v. Union of India (2011), which held there is “no absolute bar of secrecy” under similar treaty provisions and emphasised that courts cannot be bound by clauses that block investigations or constitutional processes.

Quoting from that judgment, Justice Dahiya observed, “Comity of nations cannot be predicated upon clauses of secrecy that could hinder constitutional proceedings… or criminal investigations.”

He further held that, “Article 28 of the Indo-French Agreement poses no obstacle to disclosure… Petitioners have no right to object by alluding to the Avoidance of Double Taxation Agreement when the Income Tax Department itself has no objection.”

On the principle of public interest, the court cited Ram Jethmalani and wrote, “If the State has arrived at a prima facie conclusion of wrongdoing, based on material evidence, citizens have the right to know, and the State has an obligation to investigate.”

From the homepage

Manoj Jarange Patil signals end to Maratha quota protest after Maharashtra govt assures GR on Kunbi status

PM Modi likely to visit Manipur soon, both sides hope he will hear them out

Manju Sharma, wife of poet Kumar Vishwas, resigns from RPSC after High Court says she ‘compromised integrity’ of 2021 SI recruitment exam