Punjab & Haryana HC Allows ED to Inspect Records in Amarinder Singh Foreign Assets Case

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has dismissed petitions filed by former Punjab Chief Minister Capt. Amarinder Singh and his son Raninder Singh, who had challenged lower court orders permitting the Enforcement Directorate (ED) to inspect confidential documents concerning their alleged foreign assets.

While allowing the ED to inspect records for the purpose of investigation, Justice Tribhuvan Dahiya, in a 14-page judgment, observed that the agency, being a statutory authority under the Foreign Exchange Management Act (FEMA), 1999, is entitled to examine judicial records while conducting its probe.

“It is not a case that the information has been demanded for public dissemination; rather, it is only for carrying out investigation against the petitioners,” the Court said, adding that if inspection was denied to the ED, which is the competent authority under law, “it would create hurdle in the investigation.”

Amarinder Singh and Raninder Singh had approached the High Court challenging the orders of a Ludhiana magistrate and a revisional court that had allowed the ED to inspect documents placed on record by the Income Tax Department.

These documents, received from French authorities under the Indo-French Double Taxation Avoidance Convention (DTAC), had been used by the Income Tax Department to launch proceedings against the petitioners.

The Income Tax Department had filed a complaint on November 30, 2016, before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ludhiana, against Amarinder Singh under Section 277 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, along with provisions of the Indian Penal Code relating to false information and perjury. The complaint alleged that credible information had been received through official channels showing that Singh was the beneficiary of foreign assets held through offshore entities, as well as bank accounts with HSBC Private Bank (Suisse) S.A., Geneva, Switzerland.

Acting on this information, the Department issued a summons under Section 131(1A) of the Income Tax Act to Amarinder Singh on March 30, 2016, seeking details of his association with the Jacaranda Trust and related entities. He was also required to explain the ownership of property P29, Marina Mansions in Dubai, allegedly acquired through companies linked to the trust.

During the pendency of the proceedings, the ED moved an application seeking inspection of the documents filed by the Income Tax Department. The Ludhiana magistrate allowed this request in September 2020, and the order was subsequently upheld by the Additional Sessions Judge in 2021.

Before the High Court, the petitioners argued that permitting the ED to inspect the documents would breach India’s DTAC with France, maintaining that the information was confidential and could not be disclosed to “strangers” such as the ED.

Opposing the plea, Zoheb Hossain, Special Counsel for the ED, submitted that the agency had only been allowed to access documents already forming part of the judicial record. He relied on Rule 2, Part-C, Chapter 16 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court Rules, which expressly allows even a stranger to inspect court records if sufficient cause is shown. The revisional court, he said, had rightly found merit in the ED’s application and allowed inspection in accordance with law.

The High Court agreed, noting that the documents had already been placed on record by the Income Tax Department and were now being sought by another government agency purely for investigation. The court stressed that this was not a case of public disclosure but of access for a statutory probe.

Rejecting the petitioners’ reliance on the Indo-French DTAC, Justice Dahiya observed that the treaty was entered into by the Government of India, and only the government could object if disclosure violated its terms. Since the Income Tax Department had raised no objection, the petitioners could not rely on the agreement to block the ED.

Citing the Supreme Court’s judgment in Ram Jethmalani v. Union of India, the court further held that any information concerning possible wrongdoing in foreign bank accounts must be shared with the State, which is duty-bound to investigate.

“The ED is permitted to inspect the record of the complaints before the Magistrate and access the information/documents; however, the same shall not be disseminated publicly unless permitted in accordance with law,” the Court directed.

With these observations, the High Court dismissed the petitions.

Case Title: Amarinder Singh Versus Income Tax Department and another 

Judgment Date: 03 September 2025

Bench: Justice Tribhuvan Dahiya