By IANS
New Delhi : The Supreme Court Monday sought replies from former Uttar Pradesh chief minister Mulayam Singh Yadav and his family members on a Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) plea that it needed to register a regular criminal case against them for corruption.
The bench of Justice C.K. Thakkar and Justice Altmas Kabir issued notices to Yadav, his parliamentarian son Akhilesh Yadav and his wife Dimple Yadav, and other son Prateek Yadav, seeking their replies on the CBI plea within four weeks.
After issuing notices, the bench also adjourned the hearing on a petition by Yadav’s family members, challenging the court’s Mar 1 order to CBI for a preliminary probe into whether the assets owned by them exceeded their legal income.
The CBI Friday filed an application to the court, saying it had concluded its preliminary probe into allegations against Yadav and sought the court’s permission to apprise it of its finding for further directions.
The CBI also submitted its probe report.
“It is submitted that the CBI has concluded its (preliminary) enquiry and is willing to place the status report before this court for perusal, if necessary,” the CBI said in its application.
“It is submitted if a preliminary enquiry by the CBI discloses commission of offences by the persons concerned, a regular case is registered and investigated as per the law,” said the CBI, hinting that it has found prima facie evidence that assets owned by Yadav and his family members exceeded their legal income, amounting to commission of offences by them under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
Owing to the political sensitivity involved in the case, the CBI, through its application had also sought to convey the impression that it is a fully independent and autonomous body, which does not seek directions from the central or the state government in registering the case.
“In the matter of the registration of a case, it does not make a reference either to the central government or the state government,” said the CBI application, hinting that it needed to register a regular corruption case against Yadav and does not need any directions from any government, as mandated by the relevant laws governing the functioning of the agency.
The Supreme Court on Mar 1 this year, acting on a public interest lawsuit by advocate Vishvanath Chaturvedi, had ordered the CBI to conduct a preliminary probe to ascertain whether Yadav and his family members owned assets exceeding their legal income.
In its Mar 1 order, the apex court had also asked the CBI to apprise the central government of its findings after concluding the probe and seek the central government’s directions on its next course of its action.
It was owing to this order that the CBI pointed out to the apex court that the laws governing its functioning do not mandate it to seek the advice or the directions of the central or a state government on its next course of action after any preliminary enquiry.