The Supreme Court on Monday declined to quash the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) First Information Report (FIR) against Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD) supremo Lalu Prasad Yadav in the high-profile land-for-jobs scam. While the court did not provide the 77-year-old former Union Minister the relief of dismissing the case, it granted him a significant procedural exemption from appearing in person before the trial court during the ongoing proceedings.
The “land-for-jobs” case dates back to Lalu Prasad Yadav’s tenure as the Union Railway Minister between 2004 and 2009. The CBI alleges that during this period, various Group D appointments were made in the West Central Zone of the Indian Railways, specifically in Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh.
According to the investigating agency, these appointments were made in exchange for land parcels that were allegedly gifted or transferred to Yadav’s family members or close associates. The CBI has filed chargesheets naming the veteran politician and several family members as accused in the matter.
The RJD chief had approached the apex court challenging a March 24 order of the Delhi High Court. The High Court had previously rejected his plea to quash the FIR, dismissing his argument that the CBI’s action was legally unsustainable.
Yadav’s primary legal contention centers on Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act. This provision requires an investigating agency to obtain prior sanction from a competent authority before conducting any inquiry or investigation into an offense alleged to have been committed by a public servant in the discharge of official duties.
The RJD leader argued that since no such prior sanction was obtained by the CBI, the inquiry, FIR, and subsequent chargesheets should be declared void.
A bench comprising Justice M. M. Sundresh and Justice N. Kotiswar Singh heard the matter. While the bench was not inclined to quash the FIR at this stage, it kept a window open for further legal debate on the procedural technicalities.
The top court specifically allowed Yadav to raise the issue of the “applicability of Section 17A” during the course of the trial. This ensures that the defense can still argue that the lack of prior sanction affects the legality of the prosecution’s case as the trial progresses.
Given Yadav’s age and reported health issues, the bench granted him a reprieve by exempting him from personal appearance before the trial court, allowing his legal representatives to appear on his behalf during the proceedings.
