In a firm course correction, the Supreme Court has refused to reopen a Benami Act dispute the Union Government wanted reviewed—making it clear that a judgment’s later overruling cannot be used as a key to unlock closed cases.
The controversy began with the 2022 Ganpati Dealcom ruling, which invalidated parts of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988. When a three-judge bench revisited and recalled that ruling in 2024, it added a crucial line: the Union could seek review of earlier decisions that had leaned on the now-recalled precedent. That single sentence would soon become the centre of a judicial tug-of-war.
Armed with this perceived liberty, the Union tried to reopen an April 2024 order that had upheld a Gujarat High Court decision quashing a Benami attachment. The High Court had relied on the 2022 Ganpati Dealcom view—an approach the Union believed it could now challenge.
But when the matter came before Justices BV Nagarathna and Augustine George Masih, the bench hit the brakes. They held that the 2024 Ganpati Dealcom order had wandered into forbidden territory by granting permission to review cases merely because the legal foundation had later shifted.
The judges pointed to an earlier ruling—Government of NCT of Delhi v. KL Rathi Steels Ltd.—which had already settled the issue. That decision, coming from a bench of equal strength, had declared unequivocally that a subsequent change in law, even by a superior or larger bench, is not a valid ground for review.
Reinforcing this, the Court invoked the Explanation to Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which explicitly bars review when a judgment’s legal premise is later overturned in another case. The bench noted that the 2024 panel had overlooked KL Rathi Steels, and that the earlier, binding view must prevail.
With that, the Court denied the Union’s request.
No liberty, no reopening—case closed.
