NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Tuesday ordered the Centre to furnish in sealed cover names of all Indians holding accounts abroad by Wednesday hinting that it suspected the Narendra Modi government's intent to get into the bottom of black money stashed abroad and taking steps to bring it back.

"Whatever information you have received from foreign countries, pass it on to us. We will ask the CBI or some other agency to investigate and give us a report. Don't ask us to modify the earlier order (to reveal all the names). We will not change a word of it (the order). We take the responsibility of investigating the entire issue. We will ensure confidentiality of investigation," said a bench comprising Chief Justice H L Dattu and Justices Ranjana P Desai and Madan B Lokur.

Attorney general Mukul Rohatgi repeatedly pleaded the government was ready to disclose all the names provided investigations prima facie revealed criminality or tax evasion requiring launch of prosecution and that such a procedure would be in sync with the confidentiality clause in the bilateral double taxation avoidance agreements, the source of information about black money.

The bench reacted sharply and asked: "Why are you trying to keep a protective umbrella for these people?"

When AG said the government had no desire to hide anything and would reveal the name after investigating into alleged criminality or tax evasion, the bench said: "Your job is to provide the names to the Supreme Court and the SIT. We have constituted the SIT to do the investigation job. Let the Union government not do anything but cooperate with SIT and the Supreme Court."

This order to furnish all names by came after Rohatgi said that the government had no intention to hide anything but the confidentiality clause in double taxation avoidance agreements signed with other countries, which were the sole sources of information about black money stashed abroad, prohibited disclosing names of those individuals who have not committed any illegality.

Rohatgi pleaded that breaching confidentiality clause could jeopardize prospect of India signing DTAAs with other countries, including US, in the near future. When the court did not relent, the AG even took on the SC and said: "Then let the court take the responsibility that India will not be able to enter into any agreement with other countries. If we do not sign such treaties, how will we get information about black money?"

"Indian government has to execute treaties to supplement its efforts in tackling the menace of black money by getting information about it. To get information, India has to subscribe to the confidentiality clause," the AG said.

The court snapped back: "Please do not give that confidentiality certificate. We do not want those stashing black money abroad to take advantage of it."

The AG said that the I-T department needed to investigate the account holders to find the legitimacy of the money deposited in foreign banks. As and when the investigations were complete and prosecutions were initiates, the government would be more than willing to disclose the names of the individuals, he said.

But, that did not assuage the court's grave doubts about the manner in which the Centre, first by the UPA government and now by the NDA government, has handled the black money issue first brought to the court's notice by senior advocate Ram Jethmalani through a PIL. Jethmalani had cestimated that black money to the tune of around Rs 70,000 crore were stashed abroad by Indians and no step was being taken to bring them back. In its July 2011 judgment, the court had set up a SIT.

Rohatgi said that the Modi government's first decision was to set up the SIT and pleaded for modification of an earlier order of the court directing disclosure of all names as it would hurt India's interest in getting information about black money.

But, the bench said: "We are not going to change a word of that order. Whatever names you have got, pass it on to us in sealed cover. Unless we monitor the investigation, nothing is going to come out of it. We hope you are not interested in protecting anyone."

When the AG said unless there was some criminality or tax evasion detected it would not be breaching the right of privacy of an individual if their names were disclosed, the bench said: "We fully share ram Jethmalani's concern on black money. On his information, we acted."

Rohatgi asked the court: "What should the government do to allay the SC's apprehension that the government was hiding facts?" The bench said: "Furnish the list of all names by tomorrow."