->Citation bot: Alter: title. Add: title. Changed bare reference to CS1/2. | Use this bot. Report bugs. | Suggested by BrownHairedGirl | Linked from User:BrownHairedGirl/Articles_with_bare_links | #UCB_webform_linked 920/2193

2021-10-09T05:07:04Z

Alter: title. Add: title. Changed bare reference to CS1/2. | Use this bot. Report bugs. | Suggested by BrownHairedGirl | Linked from User:BrownHairedGirl/Articles_with_bare_links | #UCB_webform_linked 920/2193

New page

{{EngvarB|date=January 2014}}
{{Use dmy dates|date=January 2014}}

The '''Taj Heritage Corridor case''' is an alleged scam wherein 2002–2003, the then [[Chief Minister]] of [[Uttar Pradesh]] [[Mayawati]] and a minister in her government, Nasimuddin Siddiqui, were charged with corruption. The Taj Corridor project was intended to upgrade tourist facilities near the [[Taj Mahal]] and was to be implemented during her tenure as Chief Minister. The then BJP government at the Centre gave the Environmental Clearance required for the project near Taj Mahal. However, later on the BJP backed out and then started saying that the project was not cleared by the Environment Ministry and blamed Mayawati for starting construction work near the Taj Mahal.<ref name="bigsetback">{{Citation | last=Bidwai | first=Praful | title=Big setback for the BJP | journal=[[Frontline (magazine)|Frontline]] | volume=20 | issue=19 | date=13–26 September 2003 | url=http://www.frontlineonnet.com/fl2019/stories/20030926006912200.htm}}</ref>

==Cost and funding==
The total estimated cost of the project was Rs. 1.75 billion (US$44 million).{{Citation needed|date=August 2021}}

==Political support==
The project was started with the support of the BJP and interrupted when Mayawati [[Bahujan Samaj Party]] disaligned itself with that party on 25 August 2003. Commentators said that this change in alignment was due to Mayawati's quickly-changing temperament and because of the BJP's hostility toward the Taj Heritage Corridor project.<ref name="bigsetback"/> A political commentator said that the support for the Corridor project came when Mayawati protected BJP leaders [[L.K. Advani]], [[Murli Manohar Joshi]] and [[Uma Bharti]] from prosecution in the case of the [[Demolition of Babri Masjid|demolition of the Babri Masjid]] by moving the trial of all charges except the conspiracy charge to a court in [[Rae Bareilly]].<ref name="bigsetback"/>

== Investigation ==
It has been alleged that Mayawati embezzled the money dedicated for this project. The case is currently under investigation by the [[Central Bureau of Investigation]]. Initially, the case saw some rapid progress, when CBI conducted extensive searches on her various addresses, and claimed that though she had claimed income of only Rs. 11 million during her tenure as CM, her bank balance in a single bank went up to 25 million and total assets held by her were estimated at Rs. 150 million. At one point a warrant was expected for her arrest, but she was granted a stay.<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://ia.rediff.com/news/2003/oct/22up.htm|title = HC stays Mayawati's arrest}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=http://ia.rediff.com/news/2003/oct/20up.htm|title = Maya seeks stay on possible arrest}}</ref>

In September 2003 [[Ajay Agarwal]], the former government counsel in the project, began accusing Mayawati of enriching herself from the Corridor project and also stated that Mayawati had recently acquired property both in her name and in the care of her relatives.<ref name="drama">{{Citation | last=Tripathi | first=Purima S. | title=The Uttar Pradesh Drama |journal=[[Frontline (magazine)|Frontline]] | volume=20 | issue=19 | date=13–26 September 2003 | url=http://www.frontlineonnet.com/fl2019/stories/20030926005200400.htm}}</ref>

However, since late 2003, investigations appear to have slowed down; there are speculations in the media about political interference, and the [[Supreme Court of India]] has several times pulled up the CBI for its tardy progress in the case. Media sources reported that various officials who had been investigating the case were transferred to other duties.<ref>
{{Citation |last=Ghose |first=Bhaskar |title=A widespread disease |journal=[[Frontline (magazine)|Frontline]] |volume=22 |issue=8
|date=12–25 March 2005 |url=http://www.frontlineonnet.com/fl2208/stories/20050422001910600.htm}}</ref> In June 2007, Uttar Pradesh Governor [[T. V. Rajeswar]] refused sanction to prosecute citing that there was insufficient evidence to prosecute Mayawati and other accused. In his 23-page order, he said: "the fact that the Mission Management Board, consisting of officers of both the State and the Central Government, regularly met and discussed the project and the fact that even a sum of {{INRConvert|170|m}} was spent through the Central Government public sector undertaking, NPCC, all go to show that the serious offences with which Mayawati and the Minister were charged do not stand scrutiny."<ref name="The Hindu 2007">{{cite news | last = Kumar | first = Vinay | date = 7 June 2007 | title = No element of corruption on Mayawati's part, says Uttar Pradesh Governor | location = Chennai, India | url = http://www.hindu.com/2007/06/07/stories/2007060700541300.htm | archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20070831234659/http://www.hindu.com/2007/06/07/stories/2007060700541300.htm | url-status = dead | archive-date = 31 August 2007 | work = [[The Hindu]] | accessdate = 1 August 2012 }}</ref> The Supreme Court rejected the plea of the CBI and refused to direct the Governor to prosecute her. On 5 November 2012, Lucknow bench of [[Allahabad High Court]] upheld [[trial court]]'s order to close the case for want of sanction to prosecute. It was thought that the case was effectively ended before going to trial.<ref name="NDTV 2007">{{cite web | title = Taj case: Mayawati gets reprieve | work = NDTV | date = 10 October 2007 | url = http://www.ndtv.com/video/player/news/taj-case-mayawati-gets-reprieve/17992 | accessdate = 17 June 2012 }}</ref><ref name="Hindustan Times 2007">{{cite web| title = Maya gets reprieve in Taj corridor case| work = [[Hindustan Times]]| publisher = [[HT Media]]| date = 10 October 2007| url = http://www.hindustantimes.com/Maya-gets-reprieve-in-Taj-corridor-case/Article1-251919.aspx| accessdate = 17 June 2012| url-status = dead| archiveurl = https://web.archive.org/web/20101203202734/http://www.hindustantimes.com/Maya-gets-reprieve-in-Taj-corridor-case/Article1-251919.aspx| archivedate = 3 December 2010| df = dmy-all}}</ref><ref name="IBN Live ">{{cite web| last = Patni| first = Abhishek| title = Wah Taj! Maya gets away scot-free\| publisher = CNN-IBN| url = http://ibnlive.in.com/news/monumental-relief-for-maya--wah-taj/42282-4.html| archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20140222173019/http://ibnlive.in.com/news/monumental-relief-for-maya--wah-taj/42282-4.html| url-status = dead| archive-date = 22 February 2014| accessdate = 26 July 2012}}</ref> However, on 28 January 2013, a Supreme Court bench consisting of Justice [[H.L. Dattu]] and [[Ranjan Gogoi]] agreed to examine the case and asked the relevant parties to file their response.<ref name="SC issues notice to Maya, CBI, Centre">{{cite news|title=SC issues notice to Maya, CBI, Centre|url=http://www.niticentral.com/2013/01/taj-corridor-case-sc-issues-notice-to-mayawati-cbi-and-centre.html|accessdate=29 January 2013|newspaper=Niti Central|date=28 January 2013|url-status=dead|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20130129232452/http://www.niticentral.com/2013/01/taj-corridor-case-sc-issues-notice-to-mayawati-cbi-and-centre.html|archivedate=29 January 2013|df=dmy-all}}</ref><ref name="Supreme Court reopens Taj corridor case against Mayawati">{{cite news|title=Supreme Court reopens Taj corridor case against Mayawati|url=http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics-and-nation/supreme-court-reopens-taj-corridor-case-against-mayawati/articleshow/18231166.cms|accessdate=29 January 2013|newspaper=Economic Times|date=28 January 2013}}</ref>

=== Disproportionate assets case ===
{{See also|Disproportionate assets}}

On 6 July 2012, a [[Supreme Court of India|Supreme Court]] bench consisting of Justice [[P. Sathasivam]] and Justice [[Dipak Misra]] quashed the [[First Information Report|FIR]] and all investigations conducted by the CBI in a Disproportionate assets case against Mayawati. The bench found irregularities in filing the case by CBI. Although the CBI decided not to appeal against this judgement,<ref name="CBI decides not to file review petition against Mayawati in disproportionate assets case">{{cite news|title=CBI decides not to file review petition against Mayawati in disproportionate assets case|url=http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2012-08-01/india/32980145_1_disproportionate-assets-case-review-petition-taj-corridor-case|archive-url=https://archive.today/20130104035809/http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2012-08-01/india/32980145_1_disproportionate-assets-case-review-petition-taj-corridor-case|url-status=dead|archive-date=4 January 2013|accessdate=13 September 2012|newspaper=[[The Times of India]]|date=1 August 2012}}</ref> a person named Kamlesh Verma appealed against the judgement through [[review petition]] which is currently pending.<ref name="Plea in Supreme Court to re-open Mayawati’s assets case">{{cite news|title=Plea in Supreme Court to re-open Mayawati's assets case|url=http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2012-08-05/india/33048497_1_da-case-assets-case-apex-court|archive-url=https://archive.today/20130103090808/http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2012-08-05/india/33048497_1_da-case-assets-case-apex-court|url-status=dead|archive-date=3 January 2013|accessdate=13 September 2012|newspaper=[[The Times of India]]|date=5 August 2012}}</ref>

==Project status==
The project is now defunct, and plans are being made to remove the partial construction near the Taj Mahal site and replace it with a low tech forested greenbelt. The High Court of Allahabad has ruled in favour of a 45–500 million project but exactly who will foot the ASI bill remains to be clear.{{citation needed|date=February 2011}}

==References==
{{Reflist}}

==External links==
*[http://courtnic.nic.in/supremecourt/casestatus_new/caseno_new_alt.asp Supreme court cases search link]
*[http://ia.rediff.com/news/taj-corridor.htm]
*[http://www.zeenews.com/articles.asp?aid=371446&sid=NAT Maya gets breather in Taj case; hearing on May 17]
*[http://www.newkerala.com/oct.php?action=fullnews&id=10143]

[[Category:Political corruption in India]]
[[Category:2002 in India]]
[[Category:2003 in India]]
[[Category:Politics of Uttar Pradesh]]
[[Category:Corruption in Uttar Pradesh]]

Taj corridor case - Revision history

->Citation bot: Alter: title. Add: title. Changed bare reference to CS1/2. | Use this bot. Report bugs. | Suggested by BrownHairedGirl | Linked from User:BrownHairedGirl/Articles_with_bare_links | #UCB_webform_linked 920/2193