By Rana Ajitn, IANS
Often seen as dancing to the tunes of the central government in politically sensitive cases, the Central Bureau of Investigation’s (CBI) impartiality has taken a fresh beating following its divergent stands before the Supreme Court in cases involving three politicians.
While the CBI is eager to register a corruption case against former Uttar Pradesh chief minister Mulayam Singh Yadav and his family members, it is at pains to shield central Railway Minister Lalu Prasad and Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Mayawati from prosecution in corruption cases against them.
In an application filed Oct 25, the CBI told the apex court it had completed its preliminary probe into allegations that Mulayam Singh and his family members owned property worth more than their legal income.
Hinting that it needed to register a case against Mulayam and his family members, it sought the court’s permission to proceed further in the case.
But in another petition filed Oct 29, the CBI challenged the Patna High Court’s act of admitting the Bihar government’s appeal against the ruling of a trial court, which had acquitted Lalu Prasad and his wife Rabri Devi in a disproportionate assets case. In its petition, the CBI contended that only it was entitled to challenge their acquittal as it had probed the case against them.
Explaining the reasons why it did not challenge the Lalu Prasad-Rabri Devi acquittal, the CBI told the court in its petition, “The centre after considering the conclusions and findings of the trial court took a conscious and considered decision that no ground was made for filing of an appeal against the judgement of the trial court (in the case against the railway minister and his wife).”
Evidently, the CBI here had no qualms in admitting that its decisions depended upon the central government and that’s why it did not challenge Lalu Prasad’s acquittal.
But in another politically sensitive case related to Mulayam Singh, the CBI sought to convey the impression that it is an independent agency and does not look up to the central government in arriving at its decision on prosecuting a particular person.
“In the matter of registration of a case, the CBI does not make a reference either to the central or the state government,” said the CBI in its petition, while apprising the apex court that it had completed its probe against Mulayam Singh and his family members.
“If a preliminary enquiry by the CBI discloses commission of an offence by a person, a regular case is registered and investigated as per the law,” the CBI added, hinting that it has a case against Mulayam Singh and his relatives.
On the other hand, contrary to the Supreme Court’s expectations, the CBI is not keen to challenge Uttar Pradesh Governor T.V. Rajeshwar’s order denying permission to it to prosecute Mayawati, who is sympathetic to the Congress-led United Progressive Alliance (UPA) government at the centre.
On Oct 10, a three-judge bench of the apex court, which had ordered the CBI in September 2003 to probe the ‘Taj Corridor scam’, ruled that it was not legally entitled to examine the legality of Governor Rajeshwar’s order denying sanction to prosecute Mayawati.
The bench had, however, hoped that the CBI would challenge the governor’s order before other appropriate courts, including the Allahabad High Court. But the CBI has given no indication till now that it proposes to challenge the governor’s order, which protects Mayawati from prosecution.
The ambitious Taj Corridor was to house a shopping mall close to the magnificent Taj Mahal, but was abandoned after a hue and cry that it would endanger the monument and that there was large-scale corruption in the project.
Asked about the CBI’s divergent stands in cases involving the three politicians, lawyer Krishan Mahajan, who assisted the apex court during the hearing of the Taj Corridor scam, said, “It is self-evident that the CBI has become a political tool in the hands of the political party ruling the centre.
“It’s ironical that the CBI continues to be a political slave of the central government despite the Supreme Court’s ruling in the Vineet Narayan case, which had spelled out a roadmap to insulate the CBI from the political influence of the central government,” said Mahajan.
But another advocate, Ajay Agarwal, who too had assisted the court in the hearing of the Taj Corridor case, pointed out: “The apex court itself has not properly followed up on its judgement in the Vineet Narayan case.”
(Ajit Rana is a legal correspondent at IANS. The opinion expressed is personal. He can be contacted at [email protected])