In a landmark ruling delivered on 20 March 2026, the Supreme Court of India set aside two judgments of the Patna High Court and held that confiscation proceedings under the Bihar Special Courts Act, 2009 (BSCA) do not automatically abate upon the death of the accused public servant. The Court clarified that properties held by close relatives or spouses — which were allegedly acquired through illegal means — can continue to remain confiscated, provided the relatives were given notice and heard during the proceedings.
The appeals arose from two separate vigilance cases filed by the Bihar Vigilance Department. In the first, Sudha Singh’s husband, Ravindra Prasad Singh, a government servant, was accused of possessing disproportionate assets worth over ₹12.96 lakh (plus several immovable properties) between 1975 and 2009. After his death in 2018, the Patna High Court allowed Sudha Singh’s appeal and quashed the confiscation order, reasoning that the Bihar Special Courts Act had no provision for continuing proceedings or substituting legal heirs once the public servant died. The High Court treated the proceedings as having become non-maintainable, drawing an analogy with abatement of criminal appeals.
A similar order was passed in the second case involving Uma Devi and Amresh Kunal, where the delinquent officer Naresh Paswan had died during the pendency of the appeal.
The Supreme Court, in a judgment authored by Justice Sanjay Karol (with Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh concurring), disagreed with the High Court’s approach. The bench observed that confiscation under the BSCA is a distinct civil-like proceeding aimed at recovering illegally acquired assets, not a purely criminal trial that automatically ends with the death of the accused.
Key observations of the Court:
- The authorised officer under Section 15 of the BSCA is empowered to pass confiscation orders after issuing notice to the person affected — which includes not only the public servant but also any other person (such as a spouse or family member) through whom the property is held.
- Sudha Singh and the other respondents had been issued notices right at the inception of the proceedings in 2012 and were heard before the confiscation order was passed in 2013. Their presence in the proceedings from the beginning meant the matter could not simply vanish upon the husband’s death.
- The only two situations in which confiscated property can be returned under the BSCA are: (i) when the High Court modifies or annuls the confiscation order in appeal, or (ii) when the accused is acquitted by the Special Court. Death of the public servant is not one of the grounds listed in the statute.
- The Court distinguished abatement of criminal proceedings (where the sentence cannot be executed after death) from confiscation proceedings, which are not punitive in nature but aimed at depriving the wrongdoer (and those holding assets on his behalf) of ill-gotten gains.
- Relying on earlier precedents, the bench noted that non-public servants can also be proceeded against for abetting the offence under Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act read with Section 107 of the IPC. Spouses holding properties acquired during the check period cannot claim automatic immunity merely because the public servant has died.
The Supreme Court therefore restored both appeals to the file of the Patna High Court with a clear direction: decide the matters on merits instead of dismissing them on the technical ground of the accused’s death.
Case Details: The State of Bihar through Vigilance Versus Sudha Singh | 2026 INSC 272
Click HERE for full judgment
Lawcutor 