New Delhi, Mar 1 (UNI) In an unusual departure from the normal procedure of law, the Supreme Court today directed the CBI to submit a report of preliminary inquiry into the alleged disproportionate assets of UP Chief Minister Mulayam Singh Yadav and his family members to the Centre instead of the Competent Court.
Today's judgment delivered by a bench comprising A R Lakshamanan and Altamas Kabir, left it to the discretion of the UPA government at the Centre to decide the future course of action based on the outcome of the CBI report.
According to the CrPC provisions, an investigating agency itself submits a report to the court and it is for the court to decide whether to take cognisance of the case or to drop the proceedings.
The court in its judgment, while directing the CBI to conduct a preliminary inquiry on the basis of allegations made in a PIL filed by an advocate Biswanath Chaturvedi, observed: ''The ultimate test in our view, therefore, is whether the allegations have any substance. An inquiry should not be shut out at the threshold because a political opponent or a person with political differences raises an allegation of commission of an offence.'' It further directed, ''We, therefore, mould the prayer in the writ petition and direct the CBI to inquire into the alleged acquisition of wealth by respondents number 2-5 and find out whether the allegations made are correct or not and submit the report to the Centre on the receipt of which the Union government may take further steps.'' The respondents number 2-5 are Mulayam Singh Yadav, his MP son Akhilesh Kumar Singh and another son Prateek Yadav and daughter-in-law Dimple Yadav.
Today's judgment came on a PIL seeking CBI inquiry into the assets running into over Rs 100 crore allegedly acquired by Mr Yadav and his family members by misusing his official status as state Chief Minister through corrupt means under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
According to the petitioner, Mr Yadav whose assets were only Rs 79,000 in 1977 owned assets worth over Rs 100 crore.
Mr Yadav in his response, however, denied all the allegations as ''bogus and baseless'' and contended that the PIL was politically motivated as the petitioner is a Congressman from the state. ''It is aimed at maligning my political reputation at the time of assembly elections in the state,'' Mr Yadav said.
The court, however, made it clear that it was not expressing any opinion on the rival claims made by the respective parties.
Earlier in the case of Railway Minister Lalu Prasad, a three-Judge bench by a majority decision had held that a PIL in criminal cases was ''foreign''. Later, the Gujarat government moved an application in the apex court seeking dismissal of all PILs pending in connection with the 2002 Gujarat communal riot cases.
Today, the court, however, observed: ''In our view it is wrong in law for the court to judge the petitioner's interest without looking into the subject matter of his/her complaints and if the petitioner shows failure of public duty, the court would be in error in dismissing the PIL.'' UNI
Today's judgment delivered by a bench comprising A R Lakshamanan and Altamas Kabir, left it to the discretion of the UPA government at the Centre to decide the future course of action based on the outcome of the CBI report.
According to the CrPC provisions, an investigating agency itself submits a report to the court and it is for the court to decide whether to take cognisance of the case or to drop the proceedings.
The court in its judgment, while directing the CBI to conduct a preliminary inquiry on the basis of allegations made in a PIL filed by an advocate Biswanath Chaturvedi, observed: ''The ultimate test in our view, therefore, is whether the allegations have any substance. An inquiry should not be shut out at the threshold because a political opponent or a person with political differences raises an allegation of commission of an offence.'' It further directed, ''We, therefore, mould the prayer in the writ petition and direct the CBI to inquire into the alleged acquisition of wealth by respondents number 2-5 and find out whether the allegations made are correct or not and submit the report to the Centre on the receipt of which the Union government may take further steps.'' The respondents number 2-5 are Mulayam Singh Yadav, his MP son Akhilesh Kumar Singh and another son Prateek Yadav and daughter-in-law Dimple Yadav.
Today's judgment came on a PIL seeking CBI inquiry into the assets running into over Rs 100 crore allegedly acquired by Mr Yadav and his family members by misusing his official status as state Chief Minister through corrupt means under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
According to the petitioner, Mr Yadav whose assets were only Rs 79,000 in 1977 owned assets worth over Rs 100 crore.
Mr Yadav in his response, however, denied all the allegations as ''bogus and baseless'' and contended that the PIL was politically motivated as the petitioner is a Congressman from the state. ''It is aimed at maligning my political reputation at the time of assembly elections in the state,'' Mr Yadav said.
The court, however, made it clear that it was not expressing any opinion on the rival claims made by the respective parties.
Earlier in the case of Railway Minister Lalu Prasad, a three-Judge bench by a majority decision had held that a PIL in criminal cases was ''foreign''. Later, the Gujarat government moved an application in the apex court seeking dismissal of all PILs pending in connection with the 2002 Gujarat communal riot cases.
Today, the court, however, observed: ''In our view it is wrong in law for the court to judge the petitioner's interest without looking into the subject matter of his/her complaints and if the petitioner shows failure of public duty, the court would be in error in dismissing the PIL.'' UNI
Oneindia Login