Legal Battle
The mysterious case of Mulayam family’s assets
A case of disproportionate assets filed in 2005 by Congress-linked lawyer Vishwanath Chaturvedi against Samajwadi Party leader Mulayam Singh Yadav, his sons Akhilesh and Prateek, and daughter-in-law Dimple Yadav has taken so many twists and turns and got linked to so many prominent personalities and events that a whole book could be written on it. The case is again coming up for hearing in the Supreme Court tomorrow. Chaturvedi’s petition had sought the prosecution of Mulayam and his family under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 for amassing assets more than their known source of income. The Supreme Court found merit in his complaint and ordered a CBI enquiry in 2007. The CBI started the enquiry. But in 2008, the then Congress-led UPA government reached the brink of collapse with the Left parties deciding to withdraw support on the issue of the nuclear deal with the US.
The government survived with the one-time support of Mulayam’s 39 MPs. Not many were surprised when the CBI approached the SC the same year (2008) seeking to withdraw the case against Mulayam and family. Chaturvedi opposed the CBI move and the case continued. Meanwhile, Mulayam had filed a petition seeking review of the SC order that started the CBI probe. The court passed an order in 2012 on this review petition in which it dropped Dimple’s name but allowed the CBI to continue its investigation against the other three, namely, Mulayam, Akhilesh and Prateek Yadav. In 2013, the Congress-led Union government once again needed the support of Mulayam’s MPs to pass the National Food Security Bill.
A public statement was made by the then CBI chief Ranjit Sinha that the agency was going to file a closure report in the SC in the Mulayam family assets case. The closure report reportedly never reached the court but reports started appearing in the media that the case was closed. Chaturvedi wrote to the CBI asking for a copy of the closure report. But he was never given one. The matter lingered and finally, in 2019, Chaturvedi once again approached the SC seeking direction to the CBI to provide him with the closure report. The court issued a notice to the agency. The CBI has reportedly informed the apex court that it has closed the case and given its report to the Central Vigilance Commission. Chaturvedi filed an RTI application with the CVC. The CVC replied saying it has received no closure report from the CBI in the said case. Armed with the CVC reply, Chaturvedi once again knocked at SC’s doors. The matter is scheduled for a hearing tomorrow.
Party Notes
Kharge’s indecisiveness raises eyebrows in party
Newly appointed Congress president Mallikarjun Kharge’s failure to act against indiscipline has raised many eyebrows within the party. Congress leaders were surprised by a public statement by their data analytics department chief Praveen Chakravarty against the party’s promise to bring back the old pension scheme. The two Congress-ruled states have implemented the scheme and it forms part of the party’s election manifesto in Himachal Pradesh and Gujarat. The leadership’s silence led to media reports indicating division where none exists. Sources said party leaders expected the new president to put a lid on such reports and a word of caution for the functionary. Kharge has also come in for criticism for his inaction over the Rajasthan rebellion. The last major task he was given by the party to handle before his election was to oversee a transition in Rajasthan.
The shoddy manner in which he and the other central representative, Ajay Maken, were treated by chief minister Ashok Gehlot and his loyalist ministers and MLAs is all part of well-recorded history. The humiliation suffered by the two was such that Kharge told the media that in his long career in the Congress, he had not seen such disregard for the party president’s wishes. The same loyalists of Gehlot who had kept the ministers and MLAs away from Kharge and Maken were given charge of handling the Rajasthan leg of Rahul Gandhi’s Bharat Jodo Yatra. Kharge and Maken had recommended action against these leaders for revolting against the party leadership. But Kharge has not acted as a president on what he had recommended as a central emissary earlier. A miffed Maken has refused to work in Rajasthan.