Confiscation proceedings do not abate on death of public servant: Supreme Court restores proceedings under Bihar Special Courts Act

Case Name: State of Bihar (Vigilance) v. Sudha Singh
Citation: 2026 INSC 272
Date of Judgment/Order: 20 March 2026
Bench: Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh

Held: The Supreme Court held that confiscation proceedings under the Bihar Special Courts Act, 2009 do not abate upon the death of the accused public servant, as such proceedings are distinct from criminal trials and are governed by a separate statutory scheme. It was held that confiscation proceedings can validly continue against persons holding property on behalf of the accused, including spouses or relatives, and that the statute does not contemplate automatic cessation of proceedings upon death. The Court further clarified that abatement applies to criminal proceedings but not to confiscation actions, which are civil in nature and aimed at recovery of illicit assets.

Summary: The case arose from confiscation proceedings initiated against the assets of a public servant accused of amassing disproportionate wealth, with properties held in the name of his wife. During pendency of the appeal, the public servant died, and the High Court set aside the confiscation proceedings on the ground that the statute did not provide for continuation after death. The Supreme Court examined the scheme of the Bihar Special Courts Act, particularly Sections 13 to 15, and held that confiscation proceedings are independent of criminal prosecution and can continue against any person holding the property in question. It distinguished between abatement of criminal proceedings upon death and continuation of confiscation proceedings, noting that the latter are based on prima facie findings and statutory procedures. The Court further held that the Act specifically provides only limited situations for return of confiscated property, namely acquittal or annulment of confiscation, and does not envisage termination due to death of the accused. It also recognised that non-public servants, including family members, can be proceeded against if they hold property derived from illicit means.

Decision: The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the judgments of the High Court which had terminated the confiscation proceedings on account of death of the public servant, restored the appeals before the High Court for decision on merits, and directed that the proceedings be adjudicated in accordance with law, while disposing of all pending applications.