The Supreme Court on Monday refused to entertain Lalu Prasad Yadav’s plea seeking quashing of the Central Bureau of Investigation’s (CBI) case in the alleged land-for-jobs case, holding that objections to the punishment could be raised before the trial court without obstructing the proceedings.
A bench of Justices MM Sundresh and N Koteswar Singh refused to intervene at this stage and gave Yadav liberty to raise the issue of advance punishment during the trial. “Taking into account the facts and circumstances, freedom is granted to the aggrieved party to raise the legal issue during the trial,” the court said in its order.
The court explained that the continuation of such legal issues could not stop the trial.
The case before the court focused on the applicability of Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, which requires prior approval before initiating an investigation into decisions taken by a public employee in the performance of his or her official duties.
Read also:Delhi judge rejects Lalu Yadav’s plea, says it was a ploy to delay trial
The Supreme Court identified two issues – the scope and application of Article 17A, and whether it operates retrospectively, but declined to examine them at this stage, leaving the questions open.
During the hearing, senior advocate Kapil Sibal, representing Yadav, said the absence of prior sanction taints the investigation itself. He contended that the allegations of influencing appointments in the Railways were intrinsically linked to Yadav’s official functions as Railway Minister and thus attract protection under Section 17A.
Sibal also noted that the Delhi High Court considered this ruling prospective, but insisted that the case deserves to be heard at the doorstep as it goes to the root of the investigation.
Opposing the petition, Additional Solicitor General SV Raju said that punishment was not required in Yadav’s case as he had neither the decision-making authority nor the recommending authority in the alleged transactions. He also confirmed that the petition was submitted late, i.e. long after the investigation had concluded.
However, the bench noted that issues of whether influence was exercised formally or informally could arise during trial, suggesting that such issues would best be decided at that stage. But the court granted Yadav exemption from personal appearance in the case.
Monday’s order comes weeks after the Delhi High Court rejected Yadav’s plea to quash the case, holding that Section 17A, which was introduced in 2018, does not apply retrospectively to alleged crimes committed between 2004 and 2009. The Supreme Court also ruled that protection under Section 17A would not apply because the alleged acts were not connected to any official recommendation or decision taken by Yadav in the course of his duties.
The CBI case relates to alleged irregular appointments in the railways during Yadav’s tenure as Union Railway Minister between 2004 and 2009. According to the agency, the Group D jobs were given in exchange for plots of land transferred to Yadav’s family members or associates.
The agency registered the case in May 2022 against Yadav and several others, including his family members. A court has already brought charges of corruption and criminal conspiracy, noting that public office was used as a “bargaining chip” to obtain land.
On January 9, a Delhi court framed charges of corruption and criminal conspiracy against the former Bihar chief minister, his wife Rabri Devi, his sons and a daughter, in the case, while noting that Yadav had used the railway ministry as his “personal fiefdom” to carry out a criminal enterprise when he was a Union minister.
The trial court also said that the charge sheet revealed a comprehensive conspiracy wherein Yadav used public office as a bargaining chip to favorably acquire lands in the name of his family members, including sons Tejashwi and Tej Pratap Yadav, his wife Rabri Devi and daughter Misa Bharti.
With the Supreme Court refusing to accept Yadav’s plea, the trial in this case will continue and Yadav is now expected to raise his legal objections at the appropriate stage before the lower court.
