New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Monday asked the former Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister, Mayawati, to explain by December 5 her stand on the Central Bureau of Investigation filing the charge sheet in the "Rs. 175 crores Taj corridor scam."

A three-judge Bench comprising Justices Ruma Pal, S.B. Sinha and S.H. Kapadia earlier indicated that it would direct the CBI to file the charge sheet and it would be open to the magistrate concerned to take cognisance of it or not.

Senior counsel K.K. Venugopal objected to the court giving such a direction and said Ms. Mayawati as the affected party should be heard before any order was passed.

Article 21 of the Constitution (which provides safeguards against arbitrary arrest or detention) would be violated if such an order was passed.

The court asked counsel to submit his objections, including on the question whether Ms. Mayawati as an accused had any right to be heard before the filing of the charge sheet.

Based on the opinion given by Attorney-General Milon K. Banerjee, the CBI Director decided not to proceed against her. Not accepting the CBI stand, the Supreme Court in March 2005 directed the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) to scrutinise the entire material with the agency and submit a report.

The CVC recommended the prosecution of Ms. Mayawati, the former State Environment Minister, Naseemuddin Siddiqui; the former Environment Secretary, R. K. Sharma and officials Rajendra Prasad, Kamal Radhu and M. Sharma.

It, however, agreed with the CBI decision to close the cases against the former Chief Secretary, D. S. Bagga; Mayawati's former personal secretary P. L. Punia; the former Union Environment Secretary, K. C. Mishra; another former State Environment Secretary, V. K. Gupta, and S. C. Bali, managing director of the company which took a construction contract for the Heritage corridor project.

Appearing for the Uttar Pradesh Government, senior counsel Harish Salve cited various apex court orders and said either the CBI should be allowed to file the charge sheet or the entire case material placed before the magistrate, who would decide whether the charge sheet should be filed or not.

Solicitor-General G.E. Vahanvati submitted that no closure report had been filed and it would be open to the court to pass any appropriate order.

In the light of Mr. Venugopal's submission, the Bench adjourned the hearing.

Permission extended

Earlier, it extended till further orders the permission granted for night viewing of the Taj Mahal two days prior to the Full Moon, on the Full Moon day and two days thereafter.

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