SC to hear plea for re-opening corruption case against Maya
- GMR pilots skip medical tests before flying Rahul Gandhi, to be grounded
- Supreme Court recognises third gender, glimmer of hope for gays
- Karnataka: At least six burnt to death, 12 injured as bus catches fire
- Train derails in Assam, at least 50 passengers injured
- Elections 2014 LIVE: Sonia Gandhi to address first poll rally in Telangana today
The Supreme Court on Monday decided to take a "second look" at a plea for revival of a corruption case against BSP chief Mayawati in the multi-crore Taj Heritage Corridor scam.
A Bench led by Justice H L Dattu admitted a bunch of petitions that have sought prosecution of Mayawati and her the then environment minister Naseemuddin Siddiqui. It issued notices to the BSP leaders, seeking their replies within four weeks.
The petitions, which were dismissed by the Allahabad High Court in November last, have challenged a refusal by the competent authority to grant sanction for prosecuting the duo for alleged offences of criminal conspiracy, cheating, forgery and under certain provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
"We will examine this case. We want to take a second look at the matter," said the Bench while issuing notices also to the Centre, the CBI and the Uttar Pradesh government. During the hearing, Mayawati's counsel K K Venugopal brought to the notice of the Bench that it was for the fourth time that such a plea had reached the court. The Bench, however, responded that it would want to examine the matter afresh.
Earlier, Shanti Bhushan, appearing for the petitioners, claimed that the HC erroneously dismissed the batch of PILs on the ground that the CBI had failed to obtain sanction from the competent authority — Governor in this case — for prosecuting Mayawati and Siddiqui. "The point in law is squarely covered by the SC's judgment in Parkash Singh Badal case wherein it has been ruled that a prior sanction for prosecution was not required in a case where the alleged act was neither in discharge nor in purported discharge of official duties," he contended.
The petitioners have contended that the CBI did not challenge the decisions of the then Governor refusing sanction for prosecution.