The court held that proceedings initiated under the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988, were for attachment and confiscation of properties which were admittedly acquired prior to the enforcement of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Amendment Act, 2016. Hence the proceedings were not valid. Followed  UOI v Ganpati Dealcom Pvt Ltd .  (2022) 447 ITR 108 (SC) the Supreme Court held that (a) section 3(2) of the unamended 1988 Act was unconstitutional for being manifestly arbitrary. Accordingly, section 3(2) of the 2016 Act was also unconstitutional being violative of article 20(1) of the Constitution, (b) the in rem forfeiture provision under section 5 of the unamended Act of 1988, prior to the 2016 Amendment Act, was unconstitutional for being manifestly arbitrary, (c) the 2016 Amendment Act was not merely procedural, but prescribed substantive provisions, (d) the in rem forfeiture provision under section 5 of the 2016 Act, being punitive in nature, can only be applied prospectively and not retroactively, (e) the authorities cannot initiate or continue criminal prosecution or confiscation proceedings for transactions entered into prior to the coming into force of the 2016 Act, viz., October 25, 2016.