The Supreme Court on Tuesday granted three weeks time to BSP supremo Mayawati to file her reply on a plea seeking direction to CBI to lodge fresh FIR in a disproportionate assets (DA) case against her.
A bench headed by Chief Justice R M Lodha adjourned the case for five weeks and also allowed the petitioner to file rejoinder on Mayawati’s reply.
The apex court had on January 17 agreed to hear the PIL filed by a Uttar Pradesh resident Kamlesh Verma seeking registration of a case against the former Chief Minister.
Eighteen months after quashing a disproportionate assets (DA) case against BSP chief Mayawati on a technical ground, the Supreme Court had questioned why CBI had not filed a fresh FIR in the case. It had said that CBI should have got proper advice on registration of a fresh case against her after the apex court quashed the FIR and had issued notice to the agency and Mayawati on Verma’s plea.
By its July 2012 verdict, the court had quashed a nine- year-long DA case against Mayawati on the ground that the agency proceeded against her without properly understanding its 2003 orders which were confined to the Taj Corridor case relating to release of Rs 17 crore by UP government allegedly without sanction.
Thereafter, in May 2013, while reserving its decision on a plea seeking review of its July 2012 judgment, the apex court had clarified that its earlier verdict has not taken away CBI’s power to proceed against her in a separate DA case.
Senior advocate Shanti Bhushan, appearing for the petitioner, contended that sufficient evidence has already been collected by CBI during its probe and a charge sheet had been drawn against Mayawati.
“The situation is that despite there being credible evidence having been collected against her indicating her disproportionate assets, she is moving scot free because after collection of evidence and preparation of charge sheet, this Court has found that the investigation was without the authority of law,” the petition said.
“The inaction of the CBI in registering a fresh FIR against her after taking due sanction under the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act despite there being credible evidence having been collected against her of having disproportionate assets is clearly arbitrary and hence, violative of the Constitution,” it said.