By IANS,
New Delhi: The Supreme Court Thursday reserved its verdict on the petitions by Samajwadi Party supremo Mulayam Singh Yadav and his family members seeking a review of its 2007 verdict directing the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to probe their assets.
An apex court bench of Justice Altamas Kabir and Justice H.L. Dattu reserved the verdict after senior counsel R. Dwivedi told the court it was not for the court but for the executive (government) to order such probes. He referred to earlier apex court verdicts in support of his contention.
Dwivedi appeared for Mulayam Singh Yadav.
The counsel told the court that it steps into the picture only if there are gross discrepancies in the probe by the investigating agency and it could result in miscarriage of justice in the course of trial.
Dwivedi told the court that the petitioner (original petitioner) Vishwanath Chaturvedi moved the apex court under Article 32 of the constitution without ever going to the police or the CBI invoking their duties. He wondered in what way the petitioner’s fundamental rights were affected by the case before the court.
“He does not say even claim that he has gone to police or CBI to register the case and came here. Duty of the CBI has to be invoked before moving the apex court,” Dwivedi told the court.
Earlier, opposing the review petition, the senior counsel K.T.S. Tulsi appearing for Vishwanath Chaturvedi (original petitioner) told that the inquiry by the investigating agency was “neither roving nor fishing”. He said that direction issued by the apex court were unambiguous and issued after due application of mind.
Chiding the central government for going back on its earlier stand, Tulsi told the court that the Attorney General G. Vahanvati could not now change his stance based on subsequent verdicts of the top court.
Tulsi said that perhaps it was this (the then) stance of the government that inspired the apex court to direct the CBI to look into the matter and submit report to the centre.
“In review (of apex court orders or verdict) the principle of law is that Attorney General can’t use subsequent decisions to say that the judgment is erroneous. It can only be done in the case of an appeal,” Tulsi told the court.
He told the court that the Central government had earlier told the court that there was prima facie case for inquiry. The senior counsel said, “It was impermissible for the centre to go back on its stand in the review application.”