Kamal Ghorui
NEW DELHI: The Delhi high court on Tuesday dismissed a plea by RJD chief and former railway minister Lalu Prasad Yadav seeking to quash a CBI FIR in the alleged land-for-jobs case, holding that the petition was “devoid of merit”. The order was passed by justice Ravinder Dudeja, effectively allowing the investigation and related proceedings to continue.The petition had challenged the FIR registered on May 18, 2022, along with three chargesheets filed in 2022, 2023 and 2024, and the orders through which cognisance was taken. However, the court rejected all grounds raised by Yadav, concluding that there was no legal basis to interfere at this stage.Yadav had argued that the entire proceedings were invalid due to the absence of prior sanction 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, making prior approval mandatory before any investigation.Opposing the plea, additional solicitor general S.V. Raju, appearing for the CBI, argued that no such sanction was required. He maintained that decisions regarding appointments were taken by general managers rather than the Minister directly, and thus the protection under Section 17A would not apply.The HC had earlier heard detailed submissions from both sides and allowed time for written arguments before delivering its verdict.The case pertains to alleged irregular appointments to Group D posts in the west central zone of the Indian Railways, based in Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh. The CBI has alleged that jobs were granted in exchange for land parcels transferred to Yadav’s family members or associates.The FIR names Yadav among several accused, including his wife, two daughters, unidentified public officials and private individuals.In his plea, Yadav also cited a significant delay, noting that the FIR was filed nearly 14 years after the alleged incidents, despite earlier enquiries having been closed with a report submitted before a competent court. He argued that reopening the case without disclosing these closure reports amounted to an abuse of process.The petition further claimed that the investigation was politically motivated and violated his right to a fair probe, reiterating that the absence of approval under Section 17A rendered the proceedings void from the outset.Rejecting these contentions, the High Court held that the plea lacked merit, clearing the way for the case to proceed.
