The Supreme Court, Mayawati & Her Disproportionate Assets
The recent judgement of the Supreme Court in Mayawati’s disproportionate assets case has evoked mixed feelings. While most feel that the judgement confirms their assertion that the CBI is being used by the government as a tool to harass opponents, there is also a rather unhappy reaction that the apex court has allowed Mayawati to get away with her allegedly ill gotten wealth.
Mayawati and her party have already hailed it as a great victory. Though the court has more or less been silent about Mayawati’s guilt or innocence in so far as possession of disproportionate assets is concerned, it has definitely agreed with the petitioner’s contention that the CBI was harassing her.
The case against Mayawati has been quashed on legal technical grounds and not because no evidence was found against her. The court had asked the CBI in 2003 inquire into various irregularities committed in the Taj Heritage Corridor Project. The court’s objection is that the premier investigating agency on its own registered another FIR to inquire into the disproportionate assets in possession of Mayawati. The police under the Cr P C do not need anyone’s permission to investigate a cognizable offence, but the problem is that the CBI’s jurisdiction is determined by the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act. Section 6 of this Act prohibits the CBI from exercising its powers and jurisdiction in a State without the consent of the Government of that State. Since UP government had not given any permission to the CBI to investigate into the assets of Mayawati, the CBI’s “roving” inquiry was without jurisdiction and therefore declared null and void.
The court gave two more arguments disputing the unnecessary zeal shown by CBI in the case. One, the complainant in the case was wrongly shown as the Assistant Registrar, PIL Branch, Supreme Court of India, New Delhi who had issued no such order or direction for registration of the case. Two, many letters sent by the petitioner to officials including the PM representing against the inquiry being done by the CBI wrongfully went unanswered. The absence of any reply by any of the authorities, according to the court, shows there was no direction or authority to the CBI to lodge an FIR or to investigate into the assets of the petitioner.
The court has doubted the motives of the CBI in registering the DA case against Mayawati. The judgement clearly states this was done “with mala fide intentions.” If the CBI acted with dishonest intentions, the implication clearly is that they were working at the behest of the central government. The judgement, right or wrong, has definitely damaged the credibility of CBI badly. It has only strengthened the general public perception that the CBI in its work is influenced by political considerations that favour those in power. When the CBI was set up on April 1, 1963, its founding Director D. P Kohli, a very eminent police officer of his time, exhorted his officers and men in these terms: "The public expect the highest standard from you both in efficiency and integrity. If the faith is to be sustained, the motto of CBI ‘Industry’, ‘Impartiality’ and ‘Integrity’ must guide your work.” The faith has definitely not been sustained.
The Supreme Court also does not cover itself with glory through this judgement, The CBI registered the case in 2003. Mayawati kept on challenging it from the beginning and finally petitioned the court in 2008 to quash it. In between, both filed points and counter points before the court. The question that the court has to answer is why should it take them nine years to decide that they were not interested in hearing the case. They could have dismissed it in the beginning itself and saved considerable time, resources and effort of the parties involved in the case. They kept on accepting arguments from both sides. While Mayawati informed the court that the CBI was discriminating against her, the investigating agency told them that they had collected huge evidence against her of amassing unaccountable wealth. According to the judgement, “the fact that this Court had stopped monitoring the assets case was again reiterated in the order dated 07.08.2006 passed by this Court.” This contention is not supported by facts. The court kept on hearing the assets case long after the order of 2006. Indeed, as recently as 26 September 2010, the Supreme Court slammed the CBI for dilly-dallying on the issue of prosecuting Mayawati in the disproportionate assets case. A bench of Justices B. Sudershan Reddy and S. S. Nijjar bluntly told the CBI counsel that if it was not keen on pursuing the case, then the “petition must go.”
It is the interpretation of orders issued by the court on different occasions that is at the heart of controversy. While the court held that no orders were given to CBI to investigate the assets case, the ASG Mr. Mohan Parasaran felt that the permission was clear from orders given on 19.07.2004, which gave the CBI three months time to complete investigation into the DA case. The order dated 25.10.2004 said that the CBI was at liberty to proceed with and take action on the basis of their investigation in the DA case. The court has acknowledged that their order dated 25.10.2004 granted liberty to the CBI that in case any link was disclosed in the course of investigation between the Taj Corridor Project and the assets, CBI was free to bring it to the notice of this Court. If the interpretation of orders by the CBI was wrong, why didn’t the court bury the case in the very beginning by refusing to hear it. The judgement fails to explain this convincingly.
The recent judgement of the Supreme Court in Mayawati’s disproportionate assets case has evoked mixed feelings. While most feel that the judgement confirms their assertion that the CBI is being used by the government as a tool to harass opponents, there is also a rather unhappy reaction that the apex court has allowed Mayawati to get away with her allegedly ill gotten wealth.
Mayawati and her party have already hailed it as a great victory. Though the court has more or less been silent about Mayawati’s guilt or innocence in so far as possession of disproportionate assets is concerned, it has definitely agreed with the petitioner’s contention that the CBI was harassing her.
The case against Mayawati has been quashed on legal technical grounds and not because no evidence was found against her. The court had asked the CBI in 2003 inquire into various irregularities committed in the Taj Heritage Corridor Project. The court’s objection is that the premier investigating agency on its own registered another FIR to inquire into the disproportionate assets in possession of Mayawati. The police under the Cr P C do not need anyone’s permission to investigate a cognizable offence, but the problem is that the CBI’s jurisdiction is determined by the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act. Section 6 of this Act prohibits the CBI from exercising its powers and jurisdiction in a State without the consent of the Government of that State. Since UP government had not given any permission to the CBI to investigate into the assets of Mayawati, the CBI’s “roving” inquiry was without jurisdiction and therefore declared null and void.
The court gave two more arguments disputing the unnecessary zeal shown by CBI in the case. One, the complainant in the case was wrongly shown as the Assistant Registrar, PIL Branch, Supreme Court of India, New Delhi who had issued no such order or direction for registration of the case. Two, many letters sent by the petitioner to officials including the PM representing against the inquiry being done by the CBI wrongfully went unanswered. The absence of any reply by any of the authorities, according to the court, shows there was no direction or authority to the CBI to lodge an FIR or to investigate into the assets of the petitioner.
The court has doubted the motives of the CBI in registering the DA case against Mayawati. The judgement clearly states this was done “with mala fide intentions.” If the CBI acted with dishonest intentions, the implication clearly is that they were working at the behest of the central government. The judgement, right or wrong, has definitely damaged the credibility of CBI badly. It has only strengthened the general public perception that the CBI in its work is influenced by political considerations that favour those in power. When the CBI was set up on April 1, 1963, its founding Director D. P Kohli, a very eminent police officer of his time, exhorted his officers and men in these terms: "The public expect the highest standard from you both in efficiency and integrity. If the faith is to be sustained, the motto of CBI ‘Industry’, ‘Impartiality’ and ‘Integrity’ must guide your work.” The faith has definitely not been sustained.
The Supreme Court also does not cover itself with glory through this judgement, The CBI registered the case in 2003. Mayawati kept on challenging it from the beginning and finally petitioned the court in 2008 to quash it. In between, both filed points and counter points before the court. The question that the court has to answer is why should it take them nine years to decide that they were not interested in hearing the case. They could have dismissed it in the beginning itself and saved considerable time, resources and effort of the parties involved in the case. They kept on accepting arguments from both sides. While Mayawati informed the court that the CBI was discriminating against her, the investigating agency told them that they had collected huge evidence against her of amassing unaccountable wealth. According to the judgement, “the fact that this Court had stopped monitoring the assets case was again reiterated in the order dated 07.08.2006 passed by this Court.” This contention is not supported by facts. The court kept on hearing the assets case long after the order of 2006. Indeed, as recently as 26 September 2010, the Supreme Court slammed the CBI for dilly-dallying on the issue of prosecuting Mayawati in the disproportionate assets case. A bench of Justices B. Sudershan Reddy and S. S. Nijjar bluntly told the CBI counsel that if it was not keen on pursuing the case, then the “petition must go.”
It is the interpretation of orders issued by the court on different occasions that is at the heart of controversy. While the court held that no orders were given to CBI to investigate the assets case, the ASG Mr. Mohan Parasaran felt that the permission was clear from orders given on 19.07.2004, which gave the CBI three months time to complete investigation into the DA case. The order dated 25.10.2004 said that the CBI was at liberty to proceed with and take action on the basis of their investigation in the DA case. The court has acknowledged that their order dated 25.10.2004 granted liberty to the CBI that in case any link was disclosed in the course of investigation between the Taj Corridor Project and the assets, CBI was free to bring it to the notice of this Court. If the interpretation of orders by the CBI was wrong, why didn’t the court bury the case in the very beginning by refusing to hear it. The judgement fails to explain this convincingly.
