CBI rubbished its own findings to save Lalu

The Central Bureau of Investigation abandoned years of inquiry and allowed the United Progressive Alliance government to manipulate it to favour railway minister Lalu Prasad and wife Rabri Devi in a case of disproportionate assets.

DNA’s investigations show that the CBI abandoned its claims against the duo, rubbished its original arguments, and went on to support the Union minister, opposing the Bihar government in the process.

Bihar advocate-general PK Shahi told DNA, “The same agency had moved a recommendation for appeal, soon after the acquittal (of Prasad and Rabri), saying it had enough evidence. A few months later, when the Bihar government decided to move the high court against the acquittal, the CBI joined hands with the accused, claiming the Bihar government had no locus standi in making an appeal. What can be more ridiculous?”

The blatant politicisation of the CBI is in line with other well-known instances. Over the past five years, the agency gave a clean chit to Congress politician Jagdish Tytler in the 1984 anti-Sikh riots case, withdrew a red-corner notice against Bofors scandal accused Ottavio Quattrocchi, and swung in opposing directions in a case of disproportionate assets against Samajwadi Party chief Mulayam Singh Yadav. But the agency’s handling of the disproportionate assets case against Lalu and Rabri may rank as its most shameless conduct yet.

On December 18, 2006, special CBI judge Muni Lal Paswan acquitted Prasad and Rabri of the charge of amassing assets worth Rs46 lakh, way beyond their known sources of income, during Prasad’s tenure as chief minister from 1990 to 1997.

The least the agency could have done thereafter was to keep quiet. But it joined hands with the accused and is party to a number of petitions in the Patna High Court and the Supreme Court of India, challenging the Bihar government’s appeal against the acquittal.
A CBI spokesman said, “The bureau cannot comment on the case. The bureau only gives comments at four stages: while registering a case, arrest, charge sheet, and conviction.”

The case was an offshoot of the Rs1,000 crore fodder scam in which Lalu Prasad was the main accused. In this scam, funds meant for cattle fodder were diverted from the animal husbandry department. The CBI began investigating the case on the orders of the Patna High Court in March 1996.

The disproportionate assets case was registered against Lalu Prasad on August 19, 1998, after which the CBI raided the chief minister’s official residence at 1, Anne Marg in Patna.  

After Lalu Prasad and Rabri were acquitted, the CBI did not appeal in the high court. To be fair, the agency’s recommendation for an appeal was turned down by the Union law ministry on the basis of the additional solicitor-general’s opinion that the “case was not fit for an appeal”. The CBI was given a fresh task: to protect the accused, who were in power and crucial to the survival of the UPA government.

By February 2007, when it was clear to the Nitish Kumar government in Bihar that the CBI had been manipulated in favour of its political rivals, it went in appeal to the Patna High Court, challenging the verdict of the CBI court. The state government’s plea was that the husband-wife duo had “siphoned off public money and the case was an equal responsibility of the Bihar government”.

Over a month later, the CBI shocked everybody by opposing the state government’s appeal. But a single judge of the high court upheld the appeal, stating that it was “maintainable” under section 378 of the Criminal Procedure Code, relating to a case of acquittal, and ordered a re-trial.

The CBI then moved the Supreme Court in October 2007. The CBI’s argument in the apex court was that “the Centre, after considering conclusions and findings of the trial court, took a conscious and considered decision that no ground was made for filing an appeal against the judgment of the trial court”. This was in addition to similar pleas filed by Lalu Prasad and Rabri.

This was followed by counter appeals by the Nitish Kumar government, seeking dismissal of the CBI and Lalu Prasad’s petitions. The matter is pending.

“Instead of trying to scuttle a re-trial, the CBI should focus on getting conviction in other fodder scam cases, where they have been painfully slow,” said Shahi. Out of the 47 cases, judgments have been arrived at in only 20.

Mulayam Singh
Lawyer Vishwanath Chaturvedi initiated a public interest litigation seeking a probe into the assets of Mulayam Singh Yadav. In March 2007, the Supreme Court told the CBI to probe the allegation.

The CBI submitted a preliminary report in October 2007 and claimed to have sufficient evidence to book the Samajwadi Party leader. It sought permission to go ahead with the probe without reference to the Union government.

But by July 2008, the CBI’s stance changed after the turn of events in Parliament, where the Left withdrew support over the nuclear deal. As the Congress opened negotiations with the Samajwadi Party, the department of personnel and training started moving files to dilute the case against Yadav. Additional solicitor-general GE Vahanvati demolished the case with a single blow, stating that Yadav and his wife’s assets could not be clubbed together. Yadav’s assets plummeted from Rs50 crore to Rs1.5 crore.

On July 22, the Manmohan Singh government won the trust vote.

On December 6, the CBI moved the Supreme Court to withdraw its application to register a case against Yadav. The flip-flop drew adverse remarks from justice Altamas Kabir and justice Cyriac Joseph. “It means you are not acting independently,” the court said. “You are acting on behalf of the central government... It is quite incomprehensible what it [the CBI] has done. And (if) what it has done is true, only god will save us.” The outburst showed the court’s frustration at the manner in which the agency was being blatantly misused by the Centre.

At the March 31, 2009, hearing, after relations between the Congress and the Samajwadi Party had started to sour, the CBI made another U-turn, telling the Supreme Court that “it stands by its recommendation of October 2007 that a DA case is made out against Mulayam and that the opinion of the solicitor-general may be ignored”.

Yadav’s camp, meanwhile, submitted a set of CDs to the court where negotiations between the CBI and Samajwadi leaders were allegedly recorded.

The next hearing is on May 5. The elections are not over yet and there is, perhaps, room for further negotiation between the Congress and the Samajwadi Party. It would be interesting to see what the CBI has to say on May 5.