Binding Supreme Court interpretation governs forfeiture cases; High Court cannot insist on a nexus in every instance.

A High Court is bound to follow a later Supreme Court decision that authoritatively explains an earlier larger-bench ruling, even in forfeiture proceedings. The later interpretation clarified that a proved nexus between the detenu's money and the property sought to be forfeited is not required in every case. On that basis, the High Court cannot refuse forfeiture relief by adopting a different reading merely because another Supreme Court decision was distinguished on its facts. The absence of a demonstrated link or nexus therefore did not justify interference, and the forfeiture challenge failed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether, in proceedings under the forfeiture law, the High Court could refuse to follow the later Supreme Court interpretation holding that no nexus between the detenu's money and the property sought to be forfeited need be established in every case.

Issue (i): Whether, in proceedings under the forfeiture law, the High Court could refuse to follow the later Supreme Court interpretation holding that no nexus between the detenu's money and the property sought to be forfeited need be established in every case.

Analysis: The Court compared the Supreme Court decisions cited before it and treated the later decision, which had interpreted the earlier larger-bench ruling, as binding on the High Court. It held that where the later Supreme Court decision has explained the governing legal position, the High Court cannot adopt a different interpretation merely because another case was distinguished on its facts. On that basis, the absence of a proved link or nexus between the detenu and the forfeited properties did not provide a ground for interference.

Conclusion: The challenge on this issue failed and the forfeiture order was upheld.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition was not sustained because the Court accepted the binding effect of the Supreme Court's later interpretation of the forfeiture law.

Ratio Decidendi: A High Court is bound to follow a later Supreme Court decision that authoritatively interprets an earlier larger-bench ruling, and cannot decline forfeiture relief on a contrary reading of the same legal position.

---