The decision of the Supreme Court in former UP CM Mayawati’s case raises many questions. According to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), it had registered a case against Mayawati in 2003 in connection with a disproportionate assets. The Apex Court found that the CBI didn’t have the right to register such a case against her. The court claims that it had never allowed the investigating agency to lodge this case against former UP CM. It means the investigating agency overshot while discharging its responsibility. Even the CBI has not denied the ground of the Supreme Court for dismissing the case against the CM but the question is- why it took nine long years in spotting the mistake. Even more startling fact is that if the CBI had registered a wrong case then why the court kept considering the status report presented by CBI? It is important to note that CBI had presented as many as six reports before the Supreme Court in this case. According to the CBI, while accepting these reports the Supreme Court had directed to delink the tow cases- disproportionate assets case and Taj Corridor Case. It is hard to decipher the logic behind the court’s decision. Mayawati has herself been declaring her assets. According to declarations, her property which was Rs 52 cr in 2007 scaled up to Rs 111 cr in 2012. It is not a new thing in the country. The property of the most of the politicians in the country has increased in the same fashion. Is there anybody to tell that why such things happen only in case of the politicians in the country?

It is normally seen that most of the politicians in the country are neither holding any office of profit nor running any enterprise, but their assets go up disproportionately flouting all the norms of market. Is the polity of the nation being guided by any different rule of economics? It is not proper that our politicians will keep showing unusual rise in their wealth and the policy makers will continue to remain apathetic to such things. Rarely do they come in trouble when a case of accumulating disproportionate assets is registered against them. Even the progress of such cases depends upon CBI investigation and the response of the ruling dispensation at the Centre which handles the investigating agency like a puppet. The fresh example in this regard is that of Andhra Pradesh MP Jaganmohan Reddy. As soon as he parted ways with the Congress and formed a new party, the government at the Centre immediately saw that Reddy had accumulated a property of crores of Rupees. Presently it is well apparent that CBI and other investigating agencies are highly active against him. Even in Mayawati’s case it has been seen that how the CBI became some time very active and some time inactive while carrying forward its investigation. In the existing political ambience, it is almost sure that if CBI wishes to move a plea for reconsideration over verdict in the court, the investigating agency will not be allowed to do so. If the main opposition party BJP is found defending themselves on this front then it is also responsible for this situation to a larger extent because when they were in power at the Centre, it took no step to ensure autonomy of the CBI.