The Hindu : Opinion / Editorials : CASE AND CLOSURE

Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Thursday, Jan 20, 2005

Opinion

Opinion - Editorials

CASE AND CLOSURE

WHAT BEGAN WITH a judicial bang has ended with an administrative whimper. The shocking decision of the Central Bureau of Investigation to file a closure report in the Taj Corridor case — in which former Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Mayawati, her erstwhile ministerial colleague and senior State bureaucrats are accused — raises troubling questions about the motives for doing so. This, after all, was not a run-of-the-mill corruption case. It was the Supreme Court that set the pace and broad direction of the investigation into the alleged irregularities relating to the Taj Heritage Corridor project — an outrageous, ecologically imprudent scheme that envisaged the construction of commercial buildings directly behind the Taj Mahal and squarely on the riverbed of the Yamuna. It was the apex court that asked the CBI to inquire into this project and later directed the investigating agency to register an FIR against Ms. Mayawati and seven others. Once again, it was judicial diktat that led the CBI to widen the ambit of the Taj Corridor inquiry and register a case against Ms. Mayawati for allegedly possessing assets disproportionate to known sources of income.

It is baffling how an investigation monitored so closely by the Supreme Court could result in a finding that there is a lack of evidence to sustain a charge of criminal conspiracy against those responsible for approving and executing the (now aborted) Taj Heritage Corridor. Over the past year and a half, the CBI has filed a series of progress reports before the Supreme Court. It was only in the last report, filed two months ago, that the investigating agency informed the Court it was going to seek the Attorney General's advice on certain legal points pertaining to the case. The ground for closure was prepared with the Attorney General maintaining that there is legal room only for initiating departmental action against the accused officials. The course the case has taken reinforces misgivings about the lack of independence and impartiality of the CBI. Despite gaining a measure of autonomy, thanks to the Supreme Court judgment in the Vineet Narain case, the investigating agency remains heavily influenced by the Government of the day and, ipso facto, by partisan political considerations. Secondly, the sudden closure of an important case cannot but raise questions of a political nature. Is the decision related to the Congress party's long-term political strategies in Uttar Pradesh — a State in which it is weak and desperately in need of a strong ally? Could it have anything to do with the fact that the Congress wants the backing of the Bahujan Samaj Party's 19 Lok Sabha members in order to shore up support for the Government it leads at the Centre?

Ms. Mayawati may not be totally off the legal hook; the disproportionate assets case against her will remain. But she may no longer be the focus of a case relating to a controversial project that was pushed through without proper clearances and in circumstances that aroused grave suspicions about why it was undertaken. It was only two months ago that another politician, Congressman Satish Sharma, was the beneficiary of a closure report. In that case, the Home Ministry flatly refused the CBI the necessary sanction to prosecute him. Justice is in serious danger of being subverted if politicians close to the corridors of power are let off in this manner. They may well be innocent; indeed the legal presumption is that they are, in the absence of a conviction. But given the circumstances, the truth needs to be established by following the procedure laid down by law, and in a manner not vitiated by decisions that appear prejudiced and politically suspect.

Printer friendly page
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Opinion

News Update

Stories in this Section

REBUILDING TOURISM

CASE AND CLOSURE

Saying no to aid

Will we see a new Bush?