English
English
English
The apex court refused to quash a CBI FIR in the land-for-jobs case (Img: Internet)
New Delhi: The Supreme Court of India on Monday refused to quash the FIR and chargesheet filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation in the alleged land-for-jobs case involving RJD chief Lalu Prasad Yadav and his family members.
A bench comprising Justices M M Sundresh and N Kotiswar Singh, however, granted partial relief to the 77-year-old leader by exempting him from appearing before the trial court during proceedings.
Delhi HC rejects Lalu Yadav’s plea to quash CBI FIR in land-for-jobs case; Full story here
The court also allowed him to raise legal arguments, including the applicability of Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, at an appropriate stage.
Earlier, the Delhi High Court had dismissed Yadav’s plea seeking to quash the FIR. In its March 24 ruling, the High Court held that Section 17A, introduced in 2018, could not be applied retrospectively to alleged offences that took place between 2004 and 2009.
The court had observed that accepting such a technical challenge at a later stage could disrupt the proper course of criminal proceedings.
The case relates to alleged irregular appointments to Group D posts in the West Central Zone of the Indian Railways in Jabalpur during Yadav’s tenure as railway minister between 2004 and 2009.
According to the CBI, candidates were allegedly given jobs in exchange for land parcels, which were transferred in the names of Yadav’s family members or close associates. The FIR, registered in 2022, also names his wife, two daughters, unidentified public officials and private individuals.
Land-for-Job Scam Case: Delhi Court frames charges against Lalu, Rabri Devi, Tejashwi Yadav
Yadav has argued that the investigation and chargesheets are legally invalid due to the absence of prior sanction under Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act. He contended that such approval was mandatory before initiating the probe.
With the Supreme Court declining to interfere at this stage, the trial in the case is set to continue. The ruling signals that the legal challenge raised by Yadav will be examined during the course of proceedings rather than at the preliminary stage.
