Delhi HC throws out Lalu Yadav’s plea in land-for-jobs case, terms it ‘devoid of merit’ | India News
New Delhi: The Delhi High Court RJD chief and former railway minister Lalu Prasad on Tuesday dismissed Yadav’s plea seeking quashing of a CBI FIR in the alleged land employment case as “meritless”. Justice Ravinder Dudeja gave the order, effectively allowing the investigation and related proceedings to continue.The petition challenged the FIR registered on May 18, 2022 along with three charge sheets filed in 2022, 2023 and 2024 and the orders taken into account. However, the court rejected all the grounds raised by Yadav, concluding that there was no legal basis to intervene at this stage.Yadav argued that the entire process was illegal due to the absence of prior approval under Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Appearing for him, senior advocate Kapil Sibal contended that the alleged acts took place during Yadav’s tenure as railway minister between 2004 and 2009 and were therefore part of his official duties, mandating prior permission before any investigation.Opposing the plea, Additional Solicitor General SV Raju, appearing for the CBI, argued that no such authorization was required. He maintained that recruitment decisions were taken by General Managers rather than directly by the Minister and thus the protection under Section 17A would not apply.The high court had earlier heard detailed submissions from both sides and allowed time for written arguments before passing the judgement.The case relates to irregular recruitment to Group D posts in West Central Zone of Indian Railways located at Jabalpur in Madhya Pradesh. The CBI alleged that Yadav’s family members or associates were offered jobs in exchange for transferred land parcels.The FIR names Yadav among several accused, including his wife, two daughters, unidentified government officials and private individuals.In his plea, Yadav cited a significant delay, noting that the FIR was filed almost 14 years after the complaint, even though earlier investigations were closed with a report submitted to a competent court. He argued that reopening the case without disclosing these closure reports amounts to an abuse of process.The petition also claimed that the investigation was politically motivated and violated his right to a fair trial, reiterating that the absence of authorization under Section 17A rendered the process ineffective from the outset.Rejecting these contentions, the High Court held that the plea lacked merit, clearing the way for the case to proceed.
