CBI claims to have submitted a closure report in the disproportionate assets case against the SP leader and his family members. The complainant in the case, Vishwanath Chaturvedi, who had filed the complaint against the Samajwadi Party leader, his sons and daughter-in-law, claims to have been left in the dark.
When Chaturvedi, a lawyer himself, pressed the Supreme Court to direct the CBI to apprise the court about the investigation, the CBI informed the apex court on May 4, 2019 that “ The CBI, after conducting a further enquiry in a fair, impartial and professional manner in the matter, had independently taken a decision to close the enquiry on August 7, 2013. Subsequently, the closure report was submitted to the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) on October 8, 2013."
While the apex court was satisfied with the explanation and did not want to peruse the closure report, Chaturvedi approached the CVC with an RTI application on June 30 seeking information about the closure report.
The reply from the CVC came as a shock to him. The Central Vigilance Commission, which supervises the CBI’s investigation informed Chaturvedi, "It is intimated that no such report of CBI is available with this CPIO,"
The CVC instead advised Chaturvedi on July 5, "You may take up the matter with CBI for further information."
The CBI on October 8, 2013 claims to have sent its closure report to the CVC. It maintains that the CVC was informed that CBI had filed a Preliminary Enquiry (PE) in 2007 and not a Regular Case(RC) and that it had been advised against clubbing the assets of the members of the family since they were filing Income Tax returns separately.
CBI also informed the CVC of the method it has followed while estimating disproportionate assets in 2007 and why the amount was different when it computed the assets in 2013.
So, who is telling the truth? And where indeed is the closure report? Since the CBI claims to have filed the closure report, it would be expected to have retained a copy.
In 2007 on October 26, CBI had submitted sufficient prima facie proof to SC of corruption against Mulayam, his two sons and daughter-in-law Dimple to lodge a regular case against them.
But in December 2008, CBI sought withdrawal of its earlier stand, wanting to give a clean chit to the Yadavs.
Those familiar with UP politics believe the flip-flop by the CBI was dictated by people in power. And its response in 2019 is also dictated by extraneous considerations.