PRAMOD TEWARI Vs. KALYAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present writ petition has been filed by the leader of the Congress Legislature Party in U.P. Assembly. Through this writ petition he has made a prayer for an order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents Nos. 40 and 41 (the Home Secretary, U.P., and the State of U.P. through the Senior Superintendent of Police, Lucknow) to register criminal cases against respondents No. 1 to 39 for offences under Sections 7, 9, 10, 12 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. There is a further prayer that a further direction in the nature of mandamus be issued directing the Central Bureau of Investigation (hereinafter referred to as the 'C.B.I.') to enquire into the matter and submit a report with regard to the incidents from 19-10-1997 to 31-10-1997 and from 21-2-1998 to 26-2-1998 involving what was described as 'purchasing the M.L. As.' by respondents Nos. 1, 2 and 3, and involvement of respondents No. 1 to 39 in the act of accepting illegal gratification.

(2.) The gist of the allegations is that in the last election, for the constitution of U.P. Assembly, no particular political party got absolute majority. Hence political negotiations went on between different political parties and groups and finally the Bharatiya Janta Party and Bahujan Samaj Party (hereinafter referred to as the 'B.J.P.' and 'B.S.P.' respectively) combined together to form a Government and a Cabinet headed by Sushri Mayawati of B.S.P. was constituted with Members from both the B.J.P. and B.S.P. There was a political understanding between the two parties that after six months Sushri Mayawati would make over the office of the Chief Minister to Sri Kalyan Singh of the B.J.P. It was, however, felt towards the fag-end of the tenure of Sushri Mayawati that there was an apparent squabble going on between the so called partners of the Government. It was alleged that the process of alluring the Members of the Legislative Assembly from other groups began in September, 1997 only with a view to get a show of majority in favour of the B.J.P. It was alleged that the first prey of Sri Kalyan Singh was Sri Naresh Agarwal, who was elected to the assembly as an aspirant from Indian National Congress. Allegations were made that there were circumstantial and documentary evidence to suggest that Sri Agarwal was bribed not only to change over side but to procure others also to join hands with the B.J.P. It was alleged that in the third week of October, 1997 when Mayawati withdrew her support and the Government of Kalyan Singh was called upon to prove its majority on the floor of the house on 21-10-1997, a deal was struck by Kalyan Singh with Naresh Agarwal in derogation to all norms and decencies of public and political life and 22 Members of the Legislative Assembly, erstwhile belonging to the Indian National Congress formed a break away group and joined hands with Kalyan Singh and voted in his favour on the floor of the house. It was alleged that the defection was achieved upon a consideration of gratification by way of offering berths in the Cabinet to all these 22 defectors. There were certain other Members of the Legislative Assembly who belonged to the B.S.P. and certain more belonging to the Janta Dal, who were also allured by Kalyan Singh with gratification by way of political power and, thus, majority in favour of the B.J.P. Government led by Kalyan Singh was 'purchased'.

(3.) It was alleged further that in his interview, before the media including the Electronic Media, Naresh Agarwal had accepted that he had changed loyalty for sharing power. The petitioner described such an act as reflective of the total degradation of political morality and taking the action within the purview of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). It was alleged that certain other Chief Ministers of other States belonging to the B.J.P. had also come with sizeable amount of money to purchase the M.L. As. before the trial of strength on the floor of the U.P. Assembly on 21-10-1997 and these Chief Ministers were also arrayed as respondents, against whom also Action was sought for. Reference was made to Schedule X of the Constitution providing for disqualification on the ground of defection. Certain allegations were also made regarding other opposite parties alleging their participation in the process of bribing or purchasing of M.L. As. or what was described as 'horse trading'.