Delhi HC Rejects Lalu’s Plea In Land-For-Jobs Case

Delhi HC dismisses plea by RJD chief and former Railway Minister Lalu Prasad Yadav seeking quashing of CBI FIR in the alleged land-for-jobs case, saying the plea is devoid of merit. The bench of Justice Ravinder Dudeja passed the order.

The petition had challenged the FIR registered in 2022 as well as three chargesheets filed in 2022, 2023 and 2024, along with the orders by which cognisance was taken.

Yadav argued that the entire proceedings were legally invalid due to the absence of prior sanction under Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

Appearing for Yadav, senior advocate Kapil Sibal submitted that the alleged acts were carried out while he was serving as Railway Minister and therefore fell within the scope of his official duties. He argued that prior sanction was mandatory before initiating any enquiry or investigation in such cases.

Opposing the plea, additional solicitor general S.V. Raju, appearing for the CBI, contended that no such sanction was required. He argued that decisions regarding appointments were taken by general managers and not by the Minister directly, and therefore, the protection under Section 17A would not apply.

The court had earlier heard detailed arguments from both sides and had also granted time to file written submissions before delivering its verdict.

The case relates to alleged irregular appointments to Group D posts in the West Central Zone of the Indian Railways, based in Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh, during Yadav’s tenure as Railway Minister between 2004 and 2009. The CBI has alleged that jobs were given in exchange for land parcels transferred in the name of Yadav’s family members or associates.

The FIR was registered on May 18, 2022, against Yadav and others, including his wife, two daughters, unidentified public officials and private persons.

In his plea, Yadav also raised the issue of delay, stating that the FIR was lodged nearly 14 years after the alleged incidents, despite earlier enquiries having been closed with a report submitted before a competent court. He claimed that reopening the case without disclosing earlier closure reports amounted to abuse of the legal process.

The petition further alleged that the investigation was politically motivated and violated his right to a fair investigation. It contended that initiation of the probe without mandatory approval under Section 17A rendered the entire proceedings void from the outset.

However, the High Court rejected these arguments, holding that the plea lacked merit and allowing the investigation and proceedings in the case to continue. (ANI)