Take the pledge to vote

For a better tommorow#AajSawaroApnaKal
  • I agree to receive emails from News18

  • I promise to vote in this year's elections no matter what the odds are.
  • Please check above checkbox.


Thank you for
taking the pledge

Vote responsibly as each vote counts
and makes a diffrence


Issued in public interest by HDFC Life. HDFC Life Insurance Company Limited (Formerly HDFC Standard Life Insurance Company Limited) (“HDFC Life”). CIN: L65110MH2000PLC128245, IRDAI Reg. No. 101 . The name/letters "HDFC" in the name/logo of the company belongs to Housing Development Finance Corporation Limited ("HDFC Limited") and is used by HDFC Life under an agreement entered into with HDFC Limited. ARN EU/04/19/13618
LIVE TV DownloadNews18 App
News18 English

EXIT Poll Results

Detailed Exit Poll Results
News18 » India
4-min read

DA Case: Mulayam Tells SC Fresh Plea Filed for Extraneous Reasons on Eve of Elections

The apex court in its verdict of March 1, 2007 had directed the CBI 'to enquire into allegations' and find out as to as to whether the plea with regard to disproportionate assets of SP leaders was 'correct or not'.


Updated:April 11, 2019, 9:45 PM IST
DA Case: Mulayam Tells SC Fresh Plea Filed for Extraneous Reasons on Eve of Elections
File photo of Samajwadi Party supremo Mulayam Singh Yadav.

New Delhi: Former Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Mulayam Singh Yadav has alleged in the Supreme Court that a Congress activist was trying to rake up an old disproportionate assets case against him and his family to malign their image during the current general elections.

Yadav, who filed his affidavit in response to the notice issued to him on March 25, said Congress activist Vishwanath Chaturvedi filed fresh plea for extraneous reasons and with an objective to gain political mileage "just at the time and eve of the 2019 General Elections with mala fide reasons".

Chaturvedi has sought a direction to the CBI to place the status report on probe either before the apex court or before a magisterial court in the assets case against the three SP leaders -- Yadav and his two sons, Akhilesh, also a former Chief Minister, and Prateek.

"The petition is not bona fide and has been filed for extraneous reasons and considerations to malign the reputation of Yadav and his family particularly when the petitioner is aware that respondents would be contesting in the upcoming general elections," the affidavit claimed.

The petitioner is associated and affiliated to a political adversary and he himself contested assembly election in the past and lost, it added.

Yadav said the petition against him and his family was filed in 2005 and the CBI and the Income Tax Authorities did not find anything adverse.

He said even after a detailed enquiry, spread over the period of about two years, no case was found by the CBI against him or his son Akhilesh and daughter-in law Dimple Yadav.

He further submitted that due to one petition filed, he has been subjected to a prolonged investigation by the CBI but nothing was unearthed.

"It is stated that on account of the said proceedings, Yadav has been suffering and facing completely uncalled for embarrassment in the public sphere. He has been subjected to the investigation only for the reason that he and his family members have been in public life and have held high offices both at the state and central level," the affidavit said.

Yadav submitted that in the absence of any direction of registration of FIR or regular case by the CBI no directions can be given by the top court for placing the report of the probe agency before the jurisdictional magistrate as sought by the petitioner.

Chaturvedi, in 2005, had filed the PIL in the top court seeking a direction to the CBI to take appropriate action to prosecute Yadav, Akhilesh and his wife Dimple, and Prateek under the Prevention of Corruption Act for allegedly acquiring assets more than the known source of their income by misusing their power of authority.

The apex court in its verdict of March 1, 2007 had directed the CBI "to enquire into allegations" and find out as to as to whether the plea with regard to disproportionate assets of SP leaders was "correct or not".

In 2012, the court had dismissed the review petitions of Yadav and his sons against its verdict and directed the CBI to go ahead with the probe against them in the disproportionate assets case.

It had allowed the review plea of Dimple and directed the CBI to drop the inquiry against her saying that she was not holding any public office.

The court had also modified its March 1, 2007 order and asked the CBI to file the status report before the court, not the government.

The top court had on March 25, 2019, had also asked the probe agency to file a report within two weeks and said that "there was a status report (of 2007 by CBI) saying that prima facie case is made out. We are entitled to know as to what happened to the investigation".

CBI is yet to file its response.

Yadav, in his affidavit, said that the petitioner had suppressed material facts by not supplying the status report of 2009 by the CBI which had stated that there was no question of any disproportionate assets at all if all the facts were taken into account.

He further said that the status reports already submitted and which were part of the record of the apex court along with other facts and circumstances of the case ex-facie showed that he and his family members' assets were well explained and there was no merit in the case projected by the petitioner.

Chaturvedi, in his fresh plea, has said that till date, no FIR has been registered against the Yadavs and it has not only caused "some irremediable and irrecoverable damaged to the whole case, but also raised serious questions of credibility and integrity of our investigating agencies".

Referring to the CBI's earlier status report, the fresh plea said that the report indicated that disproportionate assets were possessed not only by Mulayam Singh Yadav, Akhilesh and Prateek but also by Dimple Yadav.

On the basis of Income Tax Returns and reliable documents of the Yadav family members, the disproportionate assets were calculated at Rs 2.63 crore, it said.

Get the best of News18 delivered to your inbox - subscribe to News18 Daybreak. Follow News18.com on Twitter, Instagram, Facebook, Telegram, TikTok and on YouTube, and stay in the know with what's happening in the world around you – in real time.

Read full article
Next Story
Next Story

Also Watch


Live TV

Countdown To Elections Results
To Assembly Elections 2018 Results