The Supreme Court has clarified that the 500-gram gold limit for married women does not automatically explain the source of jewellery in disproportionate-assets cases.…
**Gold Limits Are Not Source Proof**
The Supreme Court has ruled that the prescribed gold-holding limits for married women do not, on their own, account for the source of jewellery in disproportionate-assets prosecutions. The clarification came in Phulpari Kumari vs State of Bihar, a Prevention of Corruption Act matter.
An FIR was registered on 11 May 2015 by Bihar Vigilance Police against Kumari and her husband, alleging assets beyond known income under Sections 13(1)(e) and 13(2). A chargesheet followed on 29 July 2020 against Kumari alone, and the Special Judge, Vigilance, Patna, took cognizance on 28 January 2021.
Kumari moved the Patna High Court, arguing her gold fell within limits set by CBDT Instruction No. 1916 of 11 May 1994 and a Ministry of Finance press release of 1 December 2016. Those allow 500 grams for a married woman, 250 grams for an unmarried woman and 100 grams for a man without seizure during income-tax searches, even where holdings appear inconsistent with reported income. The High Court quashed cognizance on 14 May 2026.
**Why The Ruling Matters**
On 2 November 2026, a bench of Justices K.V. Viswanathan and Arun Palli set aside that decision, holding that showing press releases and circulars permitting gold up to a limit does not amount to accounting for possession. The Special Judge's cognizance order was restored, with proceedings to resume from that stage.
For businesses and professionals, the distinction is between three separate concepts: ownership, protection from seizure, and proof of acquisition. The limits are not ownership ceilings and not automatic exemptions from explaining source. Households may lawfully hold more gold if acquisition can be explained; holding less does not by itself establish a legitimate source.
**What To Watch Next**
The matter returns to the Special Judge, Vigilance, Patna, and will proceed on merits. The ruling does not direct ordinary households to explain jewellery holdings, nor does it withdraw sei…
Services related to this update
Want this handled for you?
Get a free expert consultation and an exact quote within 24 hours.
Get free quote
