Holding

The Court held that allegations of disproportionate assets in a public‑interest context are sufficient to justify a preliminary inquiry, and therefore directed the CBI to investigate and report, while refusing to issue a mandamus for immediate prosecution.

Summary

The petitioner filed a public interest litigation under Article 32 alleging that the Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh, Mulayam Singh Yadav, and his family acquired assets disproportionate to their known sources of income, violating the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The petition sought a writ of mandamus directing the Union of India to prosecute the respondents. The Court examined the maintainability of a PIL for probing alleged disproportionate assets, holding that while PILs generally cannot probe tax returns, allegations of asset disproportion in a public‑interest context are sufficient to warrant an inquiry. It rejected the prayer for immediate mandamus, moulding it to direct the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to conduct a preliminary inquiry and submit a report to the Union of India. The Court emphasized that the matter involved disputed facts requiring expert examination and that the integrity of a high‑ranking public official warranted scrutiny. Consequently, the writ petition was disposed with directions for CBI investigation.

Issues considered

Whether a public interest litigation is maintainable to inquire into alleged disproportionate assets of public officials under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
Whether the Court can issue a writ of mandamus directing the Union of India to prosecute without a prior investigation.
Whether the petitioner has sufficient locus standi and interest to raise the allegations.
Whether the matter should be referred to an independent agency such as the CBI for preliminary inquiry.

Legislation cited

Subjects

Public Interest LitigationDisproportionate assetsPrevention of Corruption ActCBI investigationMandamusArticle 32Political corruptionUttar Pradesh

Judgment

A VISHWANATI! CHAlURVEDI
v. I _.
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

MARCH I, 2007

B [DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN AND AL TAMAS KABIR, JJ.]

Public Interest Litigation:

Public fanctionaries and their relatives-Allegations of acquiring assets
c disproportionate to known sources of their income and filing false returns-
Writ petition filed as public interest litigation praying for direction to Union
of fndia to take appropriate action under Prevention of Corruption Act-
Maintainability of-Held, though PIL is not maintainable to inquire into
returns of a tax payer, except in special circumstances, but when scams take
D place allegatians of disproportionate assets are required to be looked into-
Ultimate test is whether allegations have any substance-An inquiry should
not be shut out at the threshold because a political opponent raises an
allegation of commission of offence-Since facts are disputed, prayer as set
out in the writ petition cannot be allowed-Therefore, prayer is moulded and ,Jr,

E
CBI is directed to conduct a preliminary inquiry into the a/legations and
submit a report to Union of India, which would take appropriate action
'·
thereupon-·Constitution of India, 1950-Article 32-Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988-Administrative Law.

The pctitiom!r filed the present writ petition under Article 32 of the
Constitution of India as Public Interest Litigation arraying Union of India as
F respondent no. 1 and the sitting Chief Minister of the State of U.P., his two
sons and one daughter-in-law as respondent nos. 2 to 5. The petitioner alleged
.,.
that respondent no. 2, Chief Minister of the State, by misusing his power and
authority acquire<ll properties worth crores of rupees. He prayed for a writ of
' '
mandamus directing respondent no. 1 to take appropriate action to prosecute
G respondent nos. 2 to 5 under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption
Act, 1988 for acquiring assets disproportionate to known sources of thl'ir
income by misusing their power and authority. Respondent nos. 2 to 5 denied
the allegation and also filed documents including income-tax returns in
support of their stand.

H 448
.. >- i
VISHW ANA TH CHATURVEDI v. U.0.1.

Disposing of the writ petition, the Court
449

A
HELD: 1. It is true that PIL is not maintainable to probe or enquire into
the returns of another taxpayer except in special circumstances. However,
when scams take place, allegation of disproportionate assets are required to
be looked into. The point to be noted is that the source of the funds plays a
crucial role in investigations in matters involving misappropriation of public B
funds. The test which one has to apply to decide the maintainability of the PIL
concerns sufficiency of the petitioner's interest. It is wrong in law for the
Court to judge the petitioner's interest without looking into the subject matter
-~
of his complaint and ifthe petitioner shows failure of public duty, the Court
would be in error in dismissing the PIL. The ultimate test, therefore, is
whether the allegations have any substance. An enquiry should not be shut
c
out at the threshold because a political opponent of a person with political
differences raises an allegation of commission of offence. !Paras 37, 39, 40]

MC. Mehta v. Union of India & Ors., (2003] 8 SCC 696, relied on.
D
Rajiv Ranjan Singh 'La/an' (Vlll) & Anr. v. Union ofIndia & Ors., 12006]
6 sec 613, held inapplicable.
-,.. K.L. Dorji v. C.B.I., (1994] 3 SCR 201; Prakash Singh Badal v. State of
-~ Punjab, 12007] 1 SCC 1, cited.
E
Vineet Narain & Ors. v. Union of India & Anr., (1998] I sec 226;
I

'Common Cause, A Registered Society v, Union of India & Ors. (1999] 6 SCC
667 and Inland Revenue Commissioners v. National Federation of Self
employed and Small Business Ltd, (1982) Appeal Cases 617, referred to.

2.1. The records placed before this Court and the allegations made by F
the petitioner encountered by the respective respondents are related to the
-.( properties purchased by the contesting respondents stated to be
disproportionate to their known source of income. Voluminous documents by
way of several sale deeds, Income-tax Returns, Income-tax Assessment Orders,
Wealth Tax Returns and several photographs have been filed. This apart,
several charts in regard to the properties purchased by the respondents have G
also been filed. The contesting respondents have also filed a separate chart.
-j

I. [1997] 6 Supp. SCR 595.

2. [1999] 3 SCR 1279.
H
450 SUPREME COURT REPORTS

A The matter requires a detailed inquiry which is time consuming. The
(2007] 3 S.C.R.

minuteness of the details furnished by all the parties has to be carefully looked ~
...
....
into and analysed only by an independent agency with the assistance of a
Chartered Accountant and other accredited Engineers and valuers of property.
This Court will not be in a po~ition to verify the factual positions. Therefore,
the prayer to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the Union of
B India to take appropriati~ action straightaway to prosecute respondent nos. 2-
5 under the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 for acquiring
assets more than the known source of their income cannot at all be
countenanced. [Paras 25, 32, 33, 34) [461-E-F; 463-B, C, F)
>I

c income3.1.andThewhether
Income-tax Department is concerned only with the source of
the tax was paid or not. Therefore, only an independent
agency or the CBI could, on Court's direction, determine the question of
disproportionate assets. Since disputed facts are involved, it requires an
investigation by an independent agency that is by the CBI. The CBI is,
therefore, directed to conduct a preliminary enquiry into the assets of
D respondent nos. 2 to 5 and after scrutinizing if a case is made out, then to
take further action in the matter. (Paras 34) (463-G-H)

3.2. Respondent no.2 is holding a very high public post of Chief Minister
-1(
in a very big State in India and the allegations made by the petitioner against

E
him have cast a cloud on his integrity. Therefore, in his own interest, it is of "
utmost importance that the truth of these allegations is determined by a
competent forum. Su1:h a course would subserve public interest and public
morality because the Chief Minister of a State should not function under a
cloud These directions would subserve public interest. (Para 36] (464-D-El

F 3.3. Therefore, the prayer in the writ petition is moulded and it is
directed that the CBI would enquire into alleged acquisition of wealth by
respondent nos. 2-5 and find out as to whether the allegations made by the
petitioner in regard to disproportionate assets to the known source of income
of respondent nos. 2-5 are correct or not and submit a report to the Union of
India; and on receipt of such report, the Union of India may take further steps
G depending upon the outcome of the preliminary enquiry into the assets of
respondent nos. 2-5. (Para 37( (464-F-G)

3
Union of India & Ors. v. Sushi! Kumar Modi & Ors., (1996[ 6 SCC
500, referred to.
.-
H 3. [1996] 8 Supp. SCR 393.
VISHWANATHCHATURVEDI v. U.0.1. [LAKSHMANAN, J.] 451
3.4. In the instant case, it needs to be noted that the Court is not A
.. ' concerned with the merits of the allegations. The petition is filed on
acquisition of alleged wealth . The Registry is directed to send in a sealed
cover the documents marked as 'A' to 'H' and all the copies of the sale deeds
and other statements etc. filed by the parties to the CBI. The CBI may take
the assistance of Chcrtered Accountants, Engineers and certified valuers for
evaluation of the properties and proceed with the investigation and enquiry in B
the matter with an open mind. IPara 38, 42] (464-H; 465-A-F]

CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition (Civil) No. 633 of2005.
-~

(Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India).
c
K.T.S. Tulsi, Rajiv Dutta, Dinesh Kumar Garg, Mansoor Ali Khan, B.S.
Billowri and M.F. humayunisa for the Petitioner.

P. Vishwanatha Shetty, Harish Salve, Ashok H. Desai, Rakesh Dwivedi,
• R.F. Nariman, Virendra Bhatia, S. Quazmi, S.J. Aristotle, D.S. Mehra, P.H .
Parekh, E.R., Kumar, Lalit Singh Chauhan, Gaurav Bhatia, Pradeep Rai, Eizaz D
Makbool, Kush Chaturvedi, Rukhmini Bobde, Sameer Parekh (for M/s. P.H.
Parekh & Co.) for the Respondents.
j.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN, J. The above writ petition under Article 32 E
of the Constitution of India styled as Public Interest Litigation has been
preferred for seeking enforcement of fundamental rights guaranteed under
Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. According to the petitioner,
he is an advocate by profession and not connected or related to any political
party or parties. According to him, he has filed this petition with an intention F
to highlight the root of corruption in U.P. Administration. According to him,

- 'i he has no relation or connection with Congress Party as on date and that the
documents which have been enclosed along with the additional affidavit filed
by respondent No.3 would go to prove that respondent No.3 is having more
access in the office of Congress party, more than even the members of AICC/
UPCC and that respondent No.3 with the help of some employees of AICC/ G
UPCC succeeded in forging documents to project the petitioner as a sponsored
_, person of Congress. It is also further stated that he is not connected with any
alleged PIL Cell of concerned party. The name of the petitioner does not
appear in the list which is approved by the office of the Congress party and
that the list annexed by respondent No.3 along with his affidavit is a frivolous H
452 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 3 S.C.R.

A list. It is also further stated that the petitioner never attended 82nd Plenary
Session of AICC at Hyderabad and Annexure A-3 is a frivolous document
which is prepared by respondent No.3 with the help of some employees of
U.P.C.C. and that the petitioner also paid some money to an employee of
UPCC and got same identity cards prepared in the name of Shri Mulayam
B Singh Yadav, Shri Shivpal Singh Yadav, Shri Akhilesh Yadav and Shri Ram
Go pal Yadav. Copies of the said identity cards have also been enclosed as
Annexure K-6 to the rejoinder to the counter affidavit. We have perused the
identity cards namely, Annexures A-3 and K-6. In our opinion, both the
identity cards which are zerox copies cannot at all be considered as
I( -
authenticated documents. In the absence of concrete proof that the petitioner
C belongs to the Congress party, his writ petition cannot be thrown out on the
question of maintainability and on the ground that the petitioner is an active
member of the Indian National Congress and the office Jn-charge of
Humanitarian Aid and Redressal Public Grievance Cell. We do not, therefore,
propose to deal with this issue any further and proceed to consider the case

D
of both the parties. ·-
2. The petitioner has filed the above petition with the following prayers:

"(a) issue an appropriate writ in the nature of mandamus directing
respondent No. I to take appropriate action to prosecute
respondent Nos. 2 to 5 under the provisions of Prevention of
E Corruption Act, 1988 for acquiring amassed assets more than the
known source of their income by misusing their power and
authority;
(b) pass such other or further order(s) as this Hon'ble Court may
deem fit and proper in the interest of justice."
F
3. According to the petitioner, the contesting respondents have misused
their power and authority and have acquired assets more than the known
source of their income. Apart from the Union of India, the petitioner has
arrayed Shri Mulayam Singh Yadav, the sitting Chief Minister, UP, and his two
sons and one daughter-in-law as party respondents. In paragraph JO of the
G writ petition, the petitioner alleges to have made a representation dated
6.11.2005 being annexure P-3, to the Hon'ble Home Minister, Government of
India, giving all the details and requested the Home Minister to take appropriate
action against the respondents. It is alleged that the Home Minister has failed
to take action against the aforesaid respondents under the provisions of the
H Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
VISHWANATH CHATURVEDI v. U.O.l. [LAKSHMANAN,J.] 453
4. The petitioner also made a representation dated 02.07 .2005 to the A
Hon'ble Governor of the State of U.P. requesting the Governor to take
immediate action against the 2nd respondent, his sons and one daughter-in-
law under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. However,
the Governor has failed to take any action on the representation made by the
petitioner. The petitioner in the representation has given the details in regard B
to the properties owned by all the contesting respondents. The petitioner has
also filed all the sale deeds and other documents. According to the petitioner,
though some of the properties mentioned by Shri Akhilesh Yadav and Shri
Mulayam Singh Yadav, in the affidavits submitted by them before the Election
Commissioner, however, source of acquiring such properties have not been
mentioned in the said affidavits. From the year 1977 , both Shri Mulayam C
Singh Yadav and Shri Akhilesh Yadav were completely involved in full time
political activities. According to the petitioner, the contesting respondents
owned properties worth several crores which have been acquired by them and
that these properties have been undervalued by these persons and the market
value of aforesaid properties is ten times more than the value mentioned by
them in their affidavits and in the sale deeds. It is further submitted that the D
respondent Nos. 2-5 have acquired wealth by misusing their power and
authority and they do not have any source of income and that all the
'7- properties acquired by them are at prime locations.

5. The petitioner has also filed additional affidavit dated 16.12.2005. E
According to the petitioner, he had no intention to wreck vengeance against
any political leader and that the respondents are afraid of justifying their
conduct of acquiring amassed wealth, disproportionate to their known sources
of income.

6. When the matter was listed before a Bench comprising ofHon'ble Mr. p
Justice Arijit Pasaya! & Hon 'ble Mr. Justice C.K. Thakker on 7 .6.2006, the
'"'\"
learned Judges, after hearing learned counsel appearing for the respective
parties, passed the following order:

"Heard learned counsel for the parties.
G
Though Mr. Mukul Rohtagi, learned Senior Adv. For respondent
Nos. 2 to 5 raised objection as to maintainability of the petition stating
that bona fides of the petitioner are not established, at this juncture,
we do not consider it necessary to go into the details on that aspect.
The basic issue involved is alleged investments and sources for such
investments. Let respondent Nos. 2 to 5 file copies of !he Income-tax H
454 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 3 S.C.R.

A and Wealth-tax returns, if any, filed before the authorities of the said
respondents along with details which accompanied the returns, if they
were filed and copies of orders, if any, passed by the statutory
authorities, within four week. Such details shall be filed for the Income-
tax/Wealth-tax assessment years 2001-2002, 2002-2003, 2003-2004, 2004-
2005, 2005-2006 and 2006-2007. The statement of Wealth shall be filed
B for the aforesaid assessment years i.e. the Statement of Wealth as on
31.3.2001, 31.3.2002, 31.3.2003, 31.3.2004 31.3.2005, 31.3.2006. We are
informed by learned counsel for respondent nos. 2 to 5 that notices
have been issued by the Income-tax authorities for some of the
aforesaid period calling for informations in terms of Section 133(6) of
c the Income-Tax Act, 1961 (in short "the Act"). The proceedings
pursuant to those notices may continue untrammeled by the fact that
the present writ petition is pending and we have asked for certain
details to be filed.

Call this matter on 17th July, 2006."
D
7. Pursuant to the said direction, respondent Nos. 2,3,4 & 5 have
submitted their Income-tax Return and Income Tax Assessment Order, Wealth
Tax Return and Wealth Tax Assessment Orders for the assessment years
2001-2002, 2002-2003, 2003-2004, 2004-2005 and 2005-2006 in sealed covers.
Respondent Nos. 2-5 also filed separate affidavits along with income-tax
E returns etc. The second respondent has also explained in his affidavit dated
7.7.2006 that all the returns of the deponent/respondent No.2 and the return
of Samajwadi Party for the assessment year 2005-2006 as well as the assessment
orders passed with respect to the deponent/respondent No.2, are being
submitted in a sealed cover for the perusal of this Court and that it also
F includes material submitted along with the returns.

8. It is also mentioned in the affidavit that the reason for submitting the
material in sealed cover is that the said documents are not public documents )r

and are otherwise liable to be misused. Similar affidavits have also been filed
by the other respondents 3-5.
G
9. A detailed counter affidavit was filed on behalf of respondent Nos.
2-5 denying all the allegations and the statements made in the writ petition.
It is stated in paragraph 2 of the counter affidavit that the reliefs sought for.
in the instant petition are not maintainable inasmuch as the State of U.P. has
not been impleaded as a party respondent and furthermore a bare perusal of
H Section 17 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 would reveal that the
VISHWANA TH CHATURVEDI v. U.0.l. [LAKSHMANAN. J.] 455
investigation could possibly be made only by an officer of the rank of Deputy A
.. I- Superintendent of Police of the State Government. A detailed parawise reply
has also been furnished with reference to each respondent, the properties
acquired and the sources of purchase and other details. According to the
respondents, the petitioner has attempted to mis lead this Court and in the
guise of PIL, he is seeking to tarnish the name and reputation of respondent
Nos. 2-5. It was further submitted that the instant petition may be dismissed. B

I0. A detailed rejoinder affidavit to the counter affidavit was filed by
the petitioner denying all the allegations contained in the counter affidavit.
- )<
In paragraph 7 of the rejoinder, it is stated as follows:

"7. In reply to para 1.2 and 6 it is stated that respondent No.2 Shri c
Mulayam Singh Yadav and his kith and kins are not only having
properties mentioned in the writ petition, they are also having various
other properties worth rupees several hundred crores. Details of some
of the properties which could not be mentioned in writ petition are
given below: D
(a) Respondent have recently constructed a very big medical college
and post-graduate college in the name of Choudary Charan Singh
'J- Degree College, Hewra, District Etawa by spending about Rs.JOO
crores. Out of the said amount, Rs.80 crores (Eighty Crores) has
been spent from contingency fund of government of U.P. for the E
years 2003-2004 and 2004-2005. Photos of said medical college
and post-graduate colleges are enclosed herewith as Annexure
K-8 to this affidavit.
(b) Respondent No.2 has also constructed a very big college under
the name and style "U.P. Rural Institute of Medical Science and F

-
Research Institute", Saifai (Etawa) by spending huge amount of
-..; Rs. I 00 crores. Photos of said institute are enclosed herewith as
Annexure K-9 to this affidavit.
(c) Respondent No. 2 to 5 are also having a very big house at village
Saifai near Etawa. The said house is hundred times better than
G
5 Star Hotel in Delhi. In order to develop said house about Rs.2
crores have been spent from contingency fund of Government of
U.P. Photo of said house is enclosed herewith as Annexure K-
I 0 to this affidavit.
(d) Respondents jointly have also constructed several huge buildings
H
•·
456 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2007) 3 S.C.R.

A at Vikramaditya Marg, Lucknow near Raj Bhawan and Vidhan
Sabha. Photos of said buildings are enclosed herewith as
Annexure K-11 to this affidavit.
(e) Respondents have recently given one of the buildings situated
at 31/93 Mahatma Gandhi Marg, Lucknow to ABN Amro Bank. . .
B Petitioner has reasons to believe that said building has been
given on a monthly rent of Rs. 20 lacs. A photo of said building
given on rent to ABN Amro Bank is enclosed herewith as
Annexure K-12 to this affidavit.
(f) Respondents were having a very big farm house near Gomti
c Nagar, Lucknow measuring about 5 acres, which was sold recently
for a sum of Rs. 5 crores by respondents Shri Akhilesh Yadav
and Shri Pratik Yadav. Photo of said farm house is enclosed
herewith as annexure K-13 to this affidavit.
(g) Respondent Shri Mulayam Singh Yadav is having a very big
D house at Friends Colony, Etawa. Photo of same is enclosed
herewith as Annexure K-14 to this affidavit.
(h) Respondent Shri Mulayam Singh Yadav is also having a bungalow
at Civil Lines, Etawa. Photo of same is enclosed herewith as -'\
annexure K-15 to this affidavit.
E (i) Respondent Shri Akhilesh Yadav is also having a very big
bungalow at Civil Lines, Etawa. Photo of same is enclosed herewith
as Annexure K-16 to this affidavit.
0) Besides this, respondent Nos. 2-5 are also having several benami
properties in the name of Shri Rajpal Yadav, brother of Shri
F Mulayam Singh Yadav who had been working in U.P. Warehouse
Corporation as a Clerk. Details of said properties are given below:
(i) Petrol pump at Saifai (Photo enclosed herewith as Annexure
K-17 to this affidavit).

(ii) House at Friends Colony, Etawa (Photo enclosed herewith as
G
Annexure K-18 to this affidavit).
(k) Huge building at Etawa under the name of Lohiya Trust at Friends
Colony, Etawa. All respondent Nos. 2 to 5 are members of said
Trust (Photos of building of said Trust enclosed herewith as
annexure K-19 to this affidavit).
H
VISHWANATHCHATURVEDI v. U.0.1. [LAKSHMANAN,J.) 457
(I) Besides the aforesaid, there is another property in the name of A
L
., Smt. Malti Devi, deceased wife of Shri Mulayam Singh Yadav,
adjacent to 31193, Mahatma Gandhi Marg, Lucknow. It is also a
property worth Rs.19 crores.
(m) It is submitted that so far as property belonging to Shri Ranbir
Singh Yadav is concerned, Shri Ranbir Yadav was the nephew B
(brother's son) of Shri Mulayam Singh Yadav, s/o Shri Ratan
Singh Yadav. All these properties in the name of Shri Ranbir
Yadav are benami properties of Shri Mulayam Singh Yadav.
- )' Neither Shri Ranbir Yadav s/o Shri Ratan Singh Yadav nor his
father Shri Ratan Singh Yadav have any source of income."
c
11. Several photographs marked as "K series" have also been filed by
the Petitioner.

12. At the time of hearing, a 1.:hart was filed by the petitioner furnishing
the details in regard to the name, description of property, consideration D
alleged to be paid, market value on the date of purchase and the market value
in 2007 which is marked as 'A'.

13. Learned senior counsel appearing for respondent No.2, at the time
of hearing, has placed four documents collectively marked as 'B'. These are
as follows: E
(1) Zerox Copy of the letter dated 5.5.2006 from the Government of India,
Office of the Assistant Director of Income-Tax, Ashok Marg, Lucknow
addressed to Shri Mulayam Singh Yadav, respondent No.2 requesting him to
furnish such an information to the sender.
F
(2) Zerox copy of the letter dated 5.5.2006 from the Government of India,
Office of the Assistant Director of Income-Tax, Ashok Marg, Lucknow
J --.; addressed to Shri Mulayam Singh Yadav, respondent No.2 to personally
attend his office on 26.5.2006 to give evidence and to produce through an
authorized representative the books of account and or other documents G
specified in the notice etc.

(3) Zerox copy of the letter dated 24.5.2006 from Shri Mulayam Singh
.... Yadav, respondent No.2 to The Additional Director of Income Tax, Lucknow
informing about furnishing of the documents, as required, through an
authorized representative and Counsel. H
458 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 3 S.C.R.

A (4) Zerox copy of the letter dated 15.6.2006 from the Authorised
representative and counsel to the Additional Director of Income-Tax, Lucknow
furnishing certain information with reference to the notice.

14. Mr. D.K. Garg, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, on
20.2.2007 furnished a corrected chart running into six pages in regard to the
B name, description of property, consideration alleged to be paid, market value
on the date of purchase and the market value in 2007 and also a zerox copy
of the Constitutional Law, Fourth Edition by John E. Nowak. It is marked as
'C'.
)(-
C 15. Mr. P.H. Parekh, learned counsel appearing for the contesting
respondents, along with his letter dated 23.2.2007 submitted reply to the Chart
which was filed during the course of the arguments in this matter on 13.2.2007
by the counsel for the petitioner.

16. It was stated in the letter that a completely new chart including
D properties which were expressly given up during the arguments and in regard
to which no arguments were advanced have been included in the new chart
filed on 20.2.2007, therefore, the said chart dated 20.2.2007 may not be taken
into consideration. Along with his letter dated 23.2.2007, Mr. P.H. Parekh,
submitted the response of respondent Nos. 2-5 to the chart of properties
E tendered to this Court by the petitioner on 13.2.2007 in the course of hearing.
The said response is marked as 'D' which runs into 8 pages.

17. Pursuant to the directions issued by the Bench comprising ofHon'ble
Mr. Justice Arijit Pasayat and Hon 'ble Mr. Justice C.K. Thakker, respondent
Nos. 2-5 filed zerox copies of their Income-tax Returns.
F
18. Shri Mulayam Singh Yadav, respondent No.2, filed zerox copies of
his Income-tax Return which is marked as 'E' runs from page 5 to 134.
Likewise, Shi:i Akhilesh Yadav, respondent No.3, filed zerox copies of his
Income-Tax Returns which is marked as 'F' runs from page 3 to 98. Mrs.
G Dimpal Yadav, respondent No.4, also filed zerox copies of her Income-Tax
Returns which is marked as 'G' runs from page 3 to 88. Shri Prateek Kumar
Yadav, respondent No.5, filed zerox copy of his Income-tax Return which is
marked as 'H' runs from page 3 to 12.

19. Several sale deeds in Hindi and English have also been filed along
H with the writ petition. On the above pleadings, documents and records placed
VISHW ANA TH CHATURVEDI v. U.0.1. (LAKSHMANAN, J.] 459
,,
before this Court, we heard the arguments of Mr. K.T.S. Tulsi, Mr. Rajiv Dutta, A
l
.)- learned senior counsel and Mr. D.K. Garg, learned counsel, appearing for the
petitioner and Mr. P. Vishwanatha Shetty, learned senior counsel for the Union
of India, Mr. Harish Salve, learned senior counsel, for respondent No.2, Mr.
Ashok H. Desai, learned senior counsel, for respondent No.3, Mr. Rakesh
Dwivedi, learned senior counsel, for respondent No.4 and Mr. R.F. Nariman,
learned senior counsel, for respondent No.5. B

20. According to Mr. K.T.S. Tutsi and as already stated above, the net
assets of the family are of Rs.9,22, 72,000/- as per the calculation made by the
- >r official valuer and the present value of the net assets comes to Rs. 24 crores.
He invited our attention to the pleadings and the charts filed by the petitioner
before this Court. In support of his submissions, he relied on the judgment
c
of this Court in KL. Dorji v. C.B.l., [1994] 3 SCR 201 and in Prakash Singh
Badal v. State of Punjab, [2007] I SCC I.

21. He also relied on a judgment of this Court in Vineet Narain & Ors.
v. Union of India & Anr., [1998] l SCC 226 (3 Judge Bench). In paragraphs D
55 and 56 this Court observed as under:

"55. These principles of public life are of general application in every
democracy and one is expected to bear them in mind while scrutinising
the conduct of every holder of a public office. It is trite that the
holders of public offices are entrusted with certain power to be exercised E
in public interest alone and, therefore, the office is held by them in
trust for the people. Any deviation from the path of rectitude by any
of the them amounts to a breach of trust and must be severely dealt
with instead of being pushed under the carpet. If the conduct amounts
an offence, it must be promptly investigated and the offender against
whom a prima facie, case is made out should be prosecuted
F
expeditiously so that the majesty of law is upheld and the rule of law
-....;
vindicated. It is the duly of the judiciary to enforce the rule oflaw and,
therefore, to guard against erosion of the rule of law.

56. The adverse impact of lack of probity in public life leading to a
G
high degree of corruption is manifold. It also has adverse effect on
foreign investment and funding from the International Monetary Fund
and the World Bank who have warned that future aid to under-
~
developed countries may be subject to the requisite steps being taken
to eradicate corruption, which prevents international aid from reaching
those for whom it is meant. Increasing corruption lias led to H
460 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 3 S.C.R.
...
A investigative journalism which is of value to a free society. The need
-{
to highlight corruption in public life through the medium of public
interest litigation invoking judicial review may be frequent in India but
is not unknown in other countries: R v. Secretary of State for Foreign
and Commonwealth Affairs, (1955) 1 WLR 386."

B 22. Concluding his arguments, Mr. K.T.S. Tulsi, submitted that all that
is required at this stage is to direct the competent investigating agency to
enquire into the matter and submit a preliminary report and to take further
action on the basis of the said report.
~-
23. Mr. Barish Salve, learned senior counsel appearing for respondent
c No.2 took us through the pleadings and the documents, in particular, the
common counter affidavit filed by respondent Nos. 2-5 and s•1bmitted that the
respondents have shown their assets etc. acquired by them and the same
have been duly assessed by the Income-tax authorities and that the FDRs
have been shown in the income-tax Returns with regard to the synopsis at
D page 'J'. Learned senior counsel further submitted that the property in question
is in the name ofSamajwadi Party and was purchased by the Samajwadi Party
directly and an amount ofRs.l,I0,00,000/- and stamp duty ofRs.11,10,000/-
was paid on 8.6.2005 for the said property and upon conversion into free-hold
property on 26.2.2005, an amount of Rs.40,41,621 /- along with stamp duty and
miscellaneous expenses of Rs.4,15,000/- have been paid by the Samajwadi
E Party and that respondent No.2 had executed the deed in his capacity as the
President of the Samajwadi Party. He invited our attention to the Deed of
Freehold Leasehold Nazool Land and the schedule at page 380 of the writ
petition paper book. He also invited our attention to the paragraphs (b), (f)
and (g) of the common counter affidavit of reply in regard to respondent No.2
F and submitted that the information already furnished are available with the
Income-tax Department and are not public records. Mr. Harish Salve further
invited our attention to the prayer made in the writ petition, additional affidavit ~
filed by the petitioner (page 276 of the paper book) and the reply filed thereon.
According to him, the facts mentioned and details furnished in the writ
petition are highly disputed facts and Income-tax authorities are already
G working on it and that the writ petition has been filed by 'l political opponent,
the same cannot be countenanced and is liable to be dismissed.

24. He invited our attention to paragraphs 171 and 173 of the judgment ,
I

of this Court in Common Cause, A Registered Society v. Union of India &
Ors., (1999] 6 SCC 667 and submitted that having regard to the facts of the
H
VISHWANA TH CHA TURVEDI v. U.O.L [LAKSHMANAN. J.) 461
case and the ingredients of the offence alleged to have been committed by A
the respondents, no case was made out against the respondents for any case
being registered against them on the basis of the allegations made in the writ
petition nor was there any occasion to direct an enquiry by the CBI in this
regard.

35. Mr. Ashok Desai, learned senior counsel, appearing for respondent B
No.3 submitted that in matters like this question of balancing factor must be
taken into account and that no action can be ordered or initiated merely on
suspicion and that this type of vague petitions should be discouraged. He
submitted that Income-tax Returns have already been submitted and the
matters are pending before the concerned authorities and all the payments C
were made by cheques is an indi:ation to show that the allegation made by
the petitioner is not true. He further submitted that the respondents have
given all the explanations in their counter affidavits and, therefore, no action
at the request of the public interest litigant can be ordered. He invited our
attention to the judgment of this Court in Rajiv Ranjan Singh 'La/an' (VIII)
& Anr. v. Union of India & Ors., (2006) 6 SCC 613. The said decision, in our D
opinion, has no application to the facts of this case. The above case relates
to a pending criminal matter before the special Court and while dealing with
the liberty of an accused in that case, this Court was of the opinion that the
liberty of an accused cannot be taken away except in accordance with the
established procedure oflaw, under the Constitution and that criminal procedure E
and other cognate statutes and that the PIL is totally foreign to pending
criminal proceedings. The case on hand does not relate to any pending
criminal proceedings. The records placed before us and the allegations made
by the petitioner encountered by the respective respondents are relatrd to the
properties purchased by the contesting respondents and that the properties
acquired are disproportionate to their known source of income. F
26. Mr. Rakesh Dwivedi, learned senior counsel, appearing for respondent
No.4 who is the wife of respondent No.3 reiterated the same arguments
advanced by other learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents. He
also submitted that separate Income-tax Returns were filed on behalf of
respondent No.4 and that respondent Nos. 2-5 have their own agricultural G
income from trading in agricultural produce and the same can be verified from
the Income-tax Returns. He also denied that respondent No.3 has no source
of income and that he had returned to India in 1997 and not in the year 2002
as alleged and that he has a substantial income from wholesale trading in
agricultural produce.
H
462 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 3 S.C.R.

A 27. Mr. R.F. Nariman, learned senior counsel appearing for respondent
{..
No.5 who is a student and son of respondent No.2. He simply submitted that
the mother of respondent No.5 purchased a plot in his name.

28. He further submitted that the writ petition should be dismissed at
the threshold as it is politically motivated. He invited our attention to pages
B 388 and 431 of the writ petition and submitted that the property was purchased
on 24.12.1999 by Smt. Sadhana, the mother of respondent No.5 herein from
one Shri Ranveer Singh and Shri Rajesh Bhojwani vide two cheques drawn
on Allahabad Bank, Etawah. Vide agreement dated 7.10.2006, the said property
has been sold to Mis Liza Builders Pvt. Ltd. for an amount of Rs.2.50 crores
C and advance of Rs. I crore has been received for the same. With regard to the
property mentioned at paragraph (b) at page 9, it is submitted that an amount
of Rs.1,89,30,000/- (cost of Rs. I, 72,00,000/- and stamp duty and miscellaneous
charges of Rs.17,30,000/- was paid for the same) and for the said purchase,
a loan of Rs. I, I 0,000,00/- had been taken from respondent No.3 and for the
remaining amount the aforementioned advance received from Mis Liza Builders •
D Pvt. Ltd. was utilized.

29. He also invited our attention to the affidavit filed by Shri Prateek
Yadav, respondent No.5 and statement made thereunder in paragraph 2. It was ·l:
stated that in accordance with the directions of this Court contained in the
order dated 7.6.2006, respondent No.5 has furnished the Income-tax Returns
E for the assessment year 2006-2007. The assessment proceedings are still
pending, therefore, the assessment order cannot be filed. It is, therefore,
submitted that the Income-tax Return filed by respondent No.5 is the first
Income-tax Return as he became major in the financial year 2005-2006. No
wealth tax return has been submitted for the assessment year 2006-2007 as
F one residential building (8/2 Yikramaditya Marg, Lucknow) and agricultural
land at Village Nagla Sohan District Etawah are exempt from the wealth tax in
view of the provisions of the Wealth Tax Act, 1958. He also furnished the i.-
Income-tax Return for the assessment year 2006-07 in a sealed cover as the
same is not a public document and is otherwise liable to be misused.

G 30. Mr. Yiswanatha Shetty, learned senior counsel, appearing for the
Union of India, invited our attention to the counter affidavit filed by the
Union of India and submitted that the Union of India will abide by any
direction that may be issued by this Court. In reply to the arguments advanced
by the learned senior counsel appearing for the contesting respondents, Mr.
H K.T.S. Tulsi, invited our attention to the rejoinder to the counter affidavit filed
VISHW ANA TH CHA TURVEDI v. U.O.L[LAKSHMANAN, J.] 463
... .,. by respondent Nos. 2-5 at pages 462, 463 and 498 of the writ petition paper
book .
A
.I<

31. According to him, a prima facie case is made out for initiating
enquiry and there is every minute ground to suspect and, therefore, the
prayer asked for should be granted.
B
32. As already noticed, voluminous documents by way of several sale
deeds, Income-tax Returns, Income-tax Assessment Order, Wealth Tax Returns
and several photographs have been filed. This apart, several charts in regard
,.. ... to the properties purchased by various respondents have also been filed. The
contesting respondents have also filed a separate chart and all these
documents have been marked as 'A' to 'H'. c
33. In our opinion, the minuteness of the details furnished by all the
parties and the Income-tax Returns and Assessment Orders, Sale deeds etc.
have to be carefully looked into and analysed only by an independent agency
with the assistance of the Chartered Accountant and otl:ter accredited Engineers
D
and valuers of the property. As stated by the petitioner, very valuable properties
in the heart of the City have been purchased for lower sale consideration and

,, lesser than the market value on the date of purchase and, therefore, it requires
a detailed enquiry which is time consuming. This Court will not be in a
position to verify each and every entry, the sale deed, the extent of the
property, the location and description of the property, the name of the E
purchaser, the name of the vendee, consideration alleged to be paid and the
market value on the date of the purchase etc.etc.

34. We have already referred to the prayer made at page 17 of the writ
petition paper book which is to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus
directing_ the Union of India to take appropriate action to prosecute respondent F
Nos. 2-5 under the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 for
'">( acquiring assets more than the known source of their income. The said prayer,
in our opinion, cannot at all be countenanced straightaway. The Income-tax
Department is concerned only with the source of income and whether the tax
was paid or not, therefore, only an independent agency or the CBI could, on G
Court direction, determine the question of disproportionate assets. We,
therefore, direct the CBI to conduct a preliminary enquiry into the assets of
all the respondents and after scrutinizing if a case is made out then to take
;..i
further action in the matter.

H
464 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 3 S.C.R.

A 35. According to Mr. Harish Salve, the property mentioned in the petition
was accounted for in the Income-tax Returns and as the Income-Tax Department
was already seized of the matter, no further enquiry was called for and that
the Court should not entertain a petition which was full of disputed facts. It
is true that the facts stated by the petitioner is disputed by the respondents
in their counter affidavits and the facts and figures stated by the respondents
B in their counter affidavits are again disputed by the petitioner in his rejoinder
affidavit. The petitioner has also filed an additional affidavit. In addition to
the above, respondent Nos. 2-5 have filed their Income-tax Returns and
Wealth Tax Returns as directed by another Bench of this Court. Therefore,
voluminous documents have to be meticulously scrutinized and carefully
C perused and statements have also to be recorded from the persons concerned
which require expertise in the field of accounting and in the valuation. Since
disputed facts are involved, it requires an investigation by an independent
agency that is by the CBI.

36. Respondent No.2, Shri Mulayam Singh Yadav, is a senior politician
D and holding a very high public post of Chief Minister in a very big State in
India and the allegations made by the petitioner against him have cast a cloud
on his integrity. Therefore, in his own interest, it is of utmost importance that
the truth of these allegations is determined by a competent forum. Such a
course would subserve public interest and public morality because the Chief
E Minister of a State should not function under a cloud and that it would also
be in the interest of respondent No.2 and the members of his family to have
their honour vindicated by establishing that the allegations are not true . In
our view, these directions would subserve public interest.

37. The ultimate test, in our view, therefore, is whether the allegations
F have any substance. An enquiry should not be shut out at the threshold
because a political opponent of a person with political difference raises an
allegation of commission of offence. Therefore, we mould the prayer in the
writ petition and direct the CBI to enquire into alleged acquisition of wealth
by respondent Nos. 2-5 and find out as to whether the allegations made by
the petitioner in regard to disproportionate assets to the known source of
G income of respondent Nos. 2-5 is correct or not and submit a report to the
Union of India and on receipt of such report, the Union of India may take
further steps depending upon the outcome of the preliminary enquiry into the
assets of respondent Nos. 2-5.

38. In the instant case, it needs to be noted that we are concerned in
H
VISHW ANA TH CHA TURVEDI v. U.O.l. [LAKSHMANAN. J.]

-
465

th is case not with the merits of the allegations. The present petition is filed A
). ~ on acquisition of alleged wealth .

39. The test which one has to apply to decide the maintainability of the
PIL concerns sufficiency of the petitioner's interest. In our view, it is wrong
in law for the Court to judge the petitioner's interest without looking into the
subject matter of his complaint and if the petitioner shows failure of public B
duty, the Court would be in error in dismissing the PIL.

40. It is also equally true that PIL is not maintainable to probe or enquire
) ;.· into the returns or another taxpayer except in special circumstances. It is the
ratio of the decision of House of Lords in the case of Inland Revenue
Commissioners v. National Federation of Self-employed and Small Business c
Ltd., ( 1982) Appeal Cases 617. However, when scams take place, allegation of
disproportionate assets are required to be looked into. In the case of M. C.
Mehta v. Union of India & Ors. (Taj Trapezium Matter), [2003] 8 SCC 696,
the Division Bench of this Court not only directed CBI to investigate the
cases against the bureaucrats but also to enquire the outflow of Rs. 17 crores D
released by the State of U.P. in respect of project undertaken by NPCC. In
that matter, the income tax returns of the former Chief Minister and other
officials were ordered to be collected by this Court. They were directed to be
collected from various income tax authorities. The point to be noted is that
the source of the funds plays a crucial role in investigations by CBI in matters
involving misappropriation of public funds. E

4 I. We make it clear that we are not expressing any opinion on the rival
claims made by the respective parties under the documents, annexures and
other papers filed in these proceedings.

42. The Registry is directed to send in sealed cover the documents F
marked as 'A' to 'H' and all the copies of the sale deeds and other statements
~ etc. filed by the parties to the CBI. The CBI may take the assistance of
Chartered Accountants, Engineers and certified valuers for evaluation of the
properties and proceed with the investigation and enquiry in the matter with
an open mind. G
43. In the case of Union of India & Ors. v. Sushi! Kumar Modi & Ors.,
[1996] 6 SCC 500, this Court in paragraph 11 has observed as under:

"We deem it proper to emphasize that every officer of the CBI
associated with the investigation has to function as a member of a H
466 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 3 S.C.R.

A cohesive team which is engaged in the common pursuit of a fair,
honest and complete investigation into the crimes alleged. It is needless -i& ,,
to further emphasize that the exercise has to be perfonned objectively
and fairly, mindful of the fact that the majesty of law has to be upheld
and the rule of law preserved, which does not discriminate between
individuals on the basis of their status, position or power. The law
B treats everyone as equal before it and this has to be kept in view
constantly in every State action to avoid violation of the 'right to
equality' guaranteed in Article 14 of the Constitution."

44. In view of the foregoing discussion, the writ petition is ordered. No ..,. '
c costs.
RP. Writ petition disposed of.