In a significant legal setback for Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD) supremo Lalu Prasad Yadav, the Delhi High Court on Tuesday dismissed his petition seeking to quash the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) FIR and subsequent chargesheets in the high-profile ‘land-for-jobs’ case. Justice Ravinder Dudeja ruled that the protection offered under Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act does not apply to the 77-year-old former Railway Minister, as the alleged offenses predated the law’s introduction.
The case centers on allegations that during Yadav’s tenure as Union Railway Minister between 2004 and 2009, Group D appointments in the West Central Zone (Jabalpur) were made in exchange for land parcels transferred to his family members and associates.
Yadav’s legal team argued that the entire investigation—including the preliminary inquiry, the FIR registered on May 18, 2022, and chargesheets filed in 2022, 2023, and 2024—was legally unsustainable. Their primary contention was the absence of prior sanction under Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, a provision introduced in 2018 requiring government approval before investigating a public servant for decisions made in the discharge of official duties.
However, Justice Dudeja rejected this argument, clarifying that the 2018 amendment cannot be applied to crimes alleged to have occurred nearly a decade earlier.
“The court said that Section 17A, which was introduced in 2018, was prospective in operation and, therefore, has no application to the present offences, which were alleged to have been committed between 2004 and 2009,” the judgment noted.
The court further distinguished between “official decisions” and the “influence” allegedly exerted by Yadav. The bench observed that Section 17A is designed to protect public servants making recommendations or taking formal decisions. In this instance, the court noted that the formal appointments were made by competent railway authorities, for whom the CBI had already obtained necessary approvals.
“The scope of Section 17A is confined to acts involving recommendations made or decisions taken by a public servant in discharge of official functions. But in this case, the petitioner was not in a position to make decisions about appointment, but could only influence,” the court remarked.
The judgment emphasized that whether Yadav exercised de facto influence or issued oral directions is a “matter of evidence” to be determined during the trial and cannot be used to derail the prosecution at this stage.
The CBI opposed the petition, labeling it a “belated challenge” intended to obstruct the framing of charges. The court agreed, noting that Yadav had already participated in the investigation, availed other statutory remedies, and allowed multiple cognisance orders to reach finality.
Justice Dudeja stated that the High Court’s extraordinary jurisdiction cannot be invoked to bypass statutory limitations or derail a trial that has already reached an advanced stage. Citing Supreme Court precedents, the court reminded that corruption poses a “grave threat to constitutional governance” and that anti-graft laws must be interpreted to strengthen the fight against it.
Yadav, who is currently out on bail along with his wife and two daughters, has pleaded “not guilty.” While a separate petition challenging the framing of corruption charges remains pending, this ruling clears a major hurdle for the CBI to proceed with the trial.
