The Centre on Tuesday told the Supreme Court that CBI inquiry can be ordered by courts “sparingly and in exceptional circumstances.”

Attorney General G E Vahanvathi told a special bench of justices Altamas Kabir and H L Dattu that whenever it involved violation of fundamental rights, unnatural deaths or incidents having national and international ramifications, courts can order a probe by the central agency.

Vahanvati made his brief submission during the hearing of the review petition filed by Samajwadi Party leader Mulayam Singh Yadav challenging the apex court’s earlier direction for a CBI probe into his and the family’s alleged disproportionate assets.

He cited the Constitution bench ruling in West Bengal versus OPDR case in 2010 wherein it was held that courts can order a CBI inquiry in “exceptional” cases in a sparing manner whenever the issue had “national or international ramifications.”

Similarly, citing the Ramdas Athwale judgement, he said a CBI inquiry can be ordered when there was a violation of a fundamental right of the citizen.

Acting on the PIL filed by an advocate Vishwanath Chaturvedi, the SC had on 1st March 2007, ordered a CBI inquiry into the assets owned by Yadav his sons Akhilesh, Prateek and daughter-in-law Dimple.

Senior counsel U Lalit, appearing for Prateek, assailed the apex court’s direction contending there was no prima facie material to prove the alleged disproportionate assets of the family.

The counsel argued there must be prima facie material that an offence is made out. “Direction for an investigation can be given only when there is a prima facie evidence,” he said.

At this point, the bench remarked that “in other words there shall not be any fishing expedition?, to which Lalit answered in the affirmative.

The counsel submitted political battles should not be conducted in courts.

Moreover, he submitted Prateek was not a public servant but a private industrialist and CBI cannot proceed against him under the Prevention of Corruption Act (PCA).

Another senior counsel Rajiv Dhavan, appearing for Dimple Yadav, said she did not hold any public office to warrant her prosecution under the PC Act.

He said there were a number of earlier judgements of the apex court that under the PCA, the assets of the family cannot be clubbed to ascertain the benami transactions.

The counsel submitted the apex court had passed the order for a CBI probe on the basis of insufficient material as there was no prima facie evidence either against Dimple or the other family members.

The counsel complained increasingly political disputes are sought to be waged in courts through such PILs.

However, Chaturvedi’s senior counsel K T S Tulsi defended the direction stating that what was ordered by the court was only a preliminary inquiry which Yadav ought to face to protect his own reputation as a public servant.

The apex court had earlier directed CBI to investigate the matter and submit its report to the union government to decide further course of action in the case.

But later the investigation agency prayed to the court to allow it to submit the report before the Supreme Court.

It again moved another application in the apex court seeking to withdraw its plea for submitting the report to the apex court and instead stick to the original direction. However, the move evoked criticism from the court.

“You (CBI) are acting at the behest of central government and the Law Ministry. You are not acting on your own,” the apex court had remarked at that time.

The PIL had alleged the SP chief and his family members had amassed assets worth over Rs 100 crore through corrupt means during his tenure as the Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh.