No SC relief to Lalu in land-for-jobs case

In a setback to Lalu Prasad Yadav, the Supreme Court on Monday refused to quash a CBI FIR in the land-for-jobs case involving the RJD chief and his family members.

A bench of Justices MM Sundresh and N Kotiswar Singh, however, granted exemption to the 77-year-old former Bihar chief minister from appearance before the trial court during the proceedings.

“We do not say anything about the issue pertaining to the application of Section 17A (of the Prevention of Corruption Act) on whether it is prospective or retrospective. Taking into consideration the facts and the circumstances, liberty is granted to the petitioner to raise the legal issue at the time of the trial,” the bench said.

The top court allowed Yadav to raise the issue of the applicability of Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act in the case during the trial of the case.

Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act provides that no enquiry, inquiry or investigation shall be conducted by a police officer into any offence alleged to have been committed by a public servant under the law without prior approval from the appropriate authority. During the hearing, Additional Solicitor General SV Raju, appearing for the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), argued that Section 17A of the Act would be invoked only if the accused was a decision-making authority.

Raju argued that prior approval against Yadav under Section 17A was not required, as he was neither the person who took the decision nor the recommending authority.

Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for Yadav, opposed the submission and said that there cannot be any investigation until the authorities get the sanction.

Sibal said the CBI has woken up after nine years to file another chargesheet on the same ground on which the case had been closed.

“At least a final order may not be passed. Other matters are pending on the same issue and we don’t get any relief. This is not fair,” he said when the bench declined the relief.

The Delhi High Court had on March 24 refused to quash a CBI FIR in the case involving Yadav and his family members, rejecting the RJD chief’s contention that the agency’s action was legally unsustainable in the absence of prior sanction under Section 17A.

The land-for-jobs case is related to Group D appointments made in the West Central Zone of the Indian Railways in Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh, during Yadav’s tenure as the railways minister between 2004 and 2009, allegedly in return for land parcels gifted or transferred by the recruits in the name of his family members or associates, officials said.

Yadav had contended that the inquiry, FIR, as well as the investigation and subsequent chargesheets in the matter, were legally unsustainable in the absence of prior sanction under Section 17A.

In his order, Justice Ravinder Dudeja of the Delhi High Court had said the section was introduced in 2018 with prospective effect, whereas the allegations date back to 2004-2009, and the court was “persuaded” by the agency’s stand that permitting a belated challenge on a technical plea relating to prior approval would defeat the “orderly administration of criminal justice”.

Justice Dudeja dismissed Yadav’s petition, which also sought quashing of the three chargesheets filed in 2022, 2023 and 2024, and the subsequent orders of cognisance in the matter.

The High Court had 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.

It thus held that the absence of prior approval did not vitiate the preliminary inquiry, registration of the FIR, investigation, or the cognisance orders.

The court had also said that the provision did not apply to this case as the alleged act was not related to any recommendations or decisions Yadav made while discharging his official functions or duties as the railway minister.

The scope of Section 17A is confined to acts involving recommendations made or decisions taken by a public servant in discharge of official functions. In this case, however, the petitioner was not in a position to make decisions about appointment, but could only influence, the court had said.

It had observed that the subsequent grant of sanction in the case undermined Yadav’s plea of prejudice, and the matter has progressed to an advanced stage.

The CBI had opposed the petition, saying it was filed belatedly, at the stage of framing of charges. It was also contended that Section 17A did not apply to the petitioner.

The case was registered on May 18, 2022, against Yadav and others, including his wife, two daughters, unidentified public officials and private persons. Yadav and the other accused are currently out on bail.

Yadav’s petition challenging the framing of corruption charges in the case is pending in the High Court.

On January 9, the trial court had ordered framing of charges against Yadav, his family members and others. On February 16, it formally framed charges against them under the Prevention of Corruption Act.

Yadav has pleaded not guilty.