Facing accusation from Samajwadi Party leader Mulayam Singh that he was being targeted by the Congress in the disproportionate assets case due to “political reasons”, the Central government on Tuesday tried to maintain a neutral stand in the Supreme Court on the issue.
Attorney General G.E. Vahanvati only explained the position of the law laid down by the Supreme Court on issuing direction by the judiciary for a Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) probe in corruption cases.
Mr Vahanvati without making any statement on the government stand on the issue said that the constitution bench in West Bengal case has clearly laid down that the CBI probe can be ordered by the court if there was gross violation of the right of the people by a person holding important constitutional position like chief minister or minister.
But there was another verdict by the SC in the Sikkim chief minister Pawan Chamling case that if any public interest petition, filed by a political opponent in corruption cases, the court has to be extra cautious in order investigation.
The AG cited another verdict of the top court in former MP Ramdas Athawale’s case that if the right of petitioner is also violated by a public authority, then also the court can order a CBI probe.
Even as a bench of Justices Altamas Kabir and H.L. Dattu commented that the stand articulated by the Attorney General virtually supported the stand of the lawyer of Mr Mulayam Singh and his family members, Mr Vahanvati chose not to make any comment either against or in favour of the SP leader and left it to the court to draw any inference.
The court was hearing the review petitions of Mr Mulayam Singh, his son Akhilesh Yadav, a Lok Sabha MP, his daughter-in-law Dimple Yadav and foster son Prateek seeking review of the February 2007 order of the apex court handing the probe in their assets to the CBI.