Earlier, FIR was quashed because court orders were confined to Taj corridor case

The Supreme Court on Wednesday reserved verdict on a petition by an intervener seeking review of its judgment granting relief to BSP leader Mayawati in the disproportionate assets (DA) case filed against her by the CBI.

A Bench of Justices P. Sathasivam and Dipak Misra, however, clarified that the CBI was free to proceed against her in a separate DA case, but not in the Taj corridor case.

The Bench, said the FIR in the DA case was quashed because the CBI proceeded against the former Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister without properly understanding its orders, which were confined to the Taj corridor case. “The CBI’s power to probe the case against Ms. Mayawati has not been taken away by us. We would pass an order clarifying the earlier judgment.”

Solicitor-General Mohan Parasaran said the earlier judgment required a clarification that the CBI’s power was not curtailed by the court.

Senior counsel S.C. Mishra, appearing for Ms. Mayawati, however, said the judgment was clear and there was no need for any clarification. “This review plea is like an appeal which should not be entertained.”

Acting on a petition from Ms. Mayawati, the Bench on July 6, 2012 quashed the FIR registered by the CBI stating she had acquired assets disproportionate to the known sources of her income. The court said “the impugned FIR is without jurisdiction and any investigation pursuant thereto is illegal.”

Now intervener Kamlesh Verma said: “There was an error apparent in the judgment on the face of record because substantial questions of law and compelling facts escaped notice and consideration of this court whereby a manifest wrong has been done, causing irreparable injury and loss to the rule of law and grave miscarriage of justice.”

The petitioner said: “The court has failed to perform its duty, as the protector and preserver of the Constitution and upholder of rule of law, by quashing the FIR against Ms. Mayawati. Further, the judgment belies the requirement of public policy that cases of corruption by public servants cannot be dealt with by courts with a technical approach. Rather, public policy required that even if there was some technical flaw in the investigation, the same could not have been given precedence over the overwhelming evidence collected by the CBI against Ms. Mayawati.”

  • Earlier verdict had not taken away CBI power to proceed against BSP chief in DA case: court

  • There was miscarriage of justice in letting off Mayawati: petitioner