Land-for-jobs scam: Delhi HC dismisses Lalu Yadav's plea to stay trial court proceedings

The Delhi High Court has dismissed a plea by former rail minister Lalu Prasad seeking a stay on the trial court proceedings in a corruption case lodged by the Central Bureau of Investigation in the land-for-jobs 'scam'.

Justice Ravinder Dudeja said there were no compelling reasons to stay the proceedings of the trial court.

The court, meanwhile, issued notice to the CBI on Yadav's petition seeking quashing of the FIR filed by the CBI in the case and asked it to file a reply within six weeks.

The court listed the matter for further hearing on 12 August.

"The present matter is stated to be listed before the special judge for arguments on charge. Notwithstanding, the pendency of the present petition, the petitioner would be at liberty to urge all his contentions before the learned trial court at the stage of consideration of charge.

"This would be rather an added opportunity to the petitioner to put forth his point and get the same adjudicated. Thus, I find no compelling reasons to stay the proceedings of the trial court. The application for stay is therefore dismissed," the court said in its order which was passed on May 29 and made available on 31 May.

The case is related to Group D appointments made in the West Central Zone of the Indian Railways based in Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh, during Lalu Prasad's tenure as the railway minister between 2004 and 2009, allegedly in return for land parcels gifted or transferred by the recruits in the name of the RJD supremo's family or associates, officials said.

In his petition in the high court, Prasad sought the quashing of the FIR as well as the three chargesheets filed in 2022, 2023 and 2024 and the consequential orders of cognisance.

During the hearing, senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing on behalf of the Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD) supremo, had argued that enquiry and FIR as well as the investigation and subsequent chargesheets in the matter could not be legally sustained as the investigating agency failed to obtain prior sanction under section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

Sanction under Section 17A was a mandatory requirement of law to launch any enquiry or investigation against a public servant, he had said.

Submitting that the trial court was slated to hear arguments on framing charges on 2 June, Sibal had urged the court to pass directions to defer the same.

He had said even after an initial closure report, an FIR was registered by the CBI in 2022 for offences allegedly committed from 2OO4 to 2009 and the trial court took cognisance and "merged" the three chargesheets on 25 February.

Senior advocate DP Singh, who appeared for the CBI, had opposed the petition and said necessary sanction under Section 19 of the anti-graft law had been obtained.

Section 19 pertains to the requirement of prior sanction from the competent authority for a court to take cognisance of an offence. Sibal however said sanction under Section 17A "preceded" any sanction under Section 19.

Singh had said that the issue of any mandatory compliance with section 17A was pending before a larger bench of the Supreme Court on account of differing views and in any event, a stay on proceedings could not be ordered for any irregularity.

"It is a case where public servants were told by the cronies for the minister to do these selections and land was given in lieu. Therefore it is called the land-for-jobs case. The minister was misusing his position," Singh had said.

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

In his petition, Prasad said that the FIR was lodged in 2022 i.e. almost after a delay of 14 years despite the CBI's initial enquiries and investigations being closed after filing of closure report before the competent court.

"Initiation of the fresh investigation in the concealment of the previous investigations and its closure reports is nothing but an abuse of the process of law.

"The petitioner is being made to suffer through an illegal, motivated investigation, in clear violation of his fundamental right to a fair investigation. Both, the initiation of the present enquiries and investigations are non est as both have been initiated without a mandatory approval under Section l7A of the PC Act," the petition claimed.

"Without such approval, any enquiry/inquiry/investigation undertaken would be void ab initio. Section 17A of the PC Act provides a filter from vexatious litigation.

"The present scenario of regime revenge and political vendetta is exactly what Section 17A seeks to restrict by protecting innocent persons. The initiation of investigation without such approval vitiates the entire proceedings since inception and the same is a jurisdictional error," it added.