Decoding Mulayam Singh Yadav assets case
- Rajya Sabha: Hooda ‘rebellion’ in Haryana ensures defeat for Cong-backed lawyer R K Anand
- BJP's national executive meeting begins in UP; PM Modi, Amit Shah to strategise
- Coming soon: Clause in real estate bill to check bias against religion, sexual orientation, diet
- Drama in Ranchi: Missing MLAs, a winning formula
- Punjab: Two Pakistani intruders killed by BSF, arms, drugs recovered
What are the allegations?
Rae Bareli advocate Vishvanath Chaturvedi filed a PIL in the Supreme Court in November 2005, seeking a CBI inquiry into the assets of Mulayam Singh Yadav, sons Akhilesh and Prateek, and daughter-in-law Dimple. The petitioner alleged the family had acquired properties in Lucknow, Etawah, etc, worth over Rs 100 crore, which were disproportionate to their known sources of income.
What happened in the SC?
In June 2006, the SC directed Mulayam, Akhilesh, Prateek and Dimple to file before it their income-tax returns of the preceding four years. On March 1, 2007, it asked CBI to conduct a preliminary enquiry into the allegations and submit a report to the Government.
What did Mulayam do?
On March 16, 2007, Mulayam and the others filed petitions against the order, alleging that Chaturvedi's PIL was sponsored by the Congress. Justice A R Lakshmanan declined to hear the case; Justice Altamas Kabir, now Chief Justice of India, heard the case in open court.
What did CBI do?
CBI registered a PE on March 5, 2007, and concluded it on October 26 that year. It approached court the next month, saying it would like to submit its report to the court rather than the government, and handed over a sealed envelope to court. The CBI report is believed to have recommended a regular case be registered against Mulayam and the others. In July 2008, as the crisis over the Nuclear deal was coming to a head, there were reports of "negotiations" between Mulayam and the UPA. That month, Dimple wrote to the PM, denying allegations against her. The PM forwarded the letter to CBI, which asked for legal opinion.
On November 21, 2008, then Solicitor General G E Vahanvati opined that the assets of Dimple and Malti Devi, Mulayam's late first wife, could not be clubbed with those of Mulayam, because they "held no public office".
- It's good that Rajan has cleared some of the mist and myth surrounding the GDP numbers
- Only reason why majority of govt schools have abysmal standards is because of bad policies
- When Nehru became PM, Americans presumed that as a democracy India would be in their camp
- It's achche din for top lawyers in the Congress party
- Debate on Rajan’s reappointment is welcome as long as it is on performance
- In Assam, strategy of polarisation has brought electoral fruit to BJP