In a setback to Lalu Prasad Yadav, the Supreme Court of India on Monday refused to quash a CBI FIR in the alleged land-for-jobs case involving the RJD leader and his family members.
A bench comprising Justices M M Sundresh and N Kotiswar Singh, however, granted exemption to the 77-year-old former Bihar Chief Minister from personal appearance before the trial court during proceedings.
The court clarified that it was not expressing any opinion on the applicability of Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act—whether prospective or retrospective—and allowed Yadav to raise the legal issue during the trial.
Section 17A of the Act mandates prior approval before any inquiry or investigation is initiated against a public servant for actions taken in the discharge of official duties. During the hearing, Additional Solicitor General S V Raju, appearing for the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), argued that the provision applies only when the accused is a decision-making authority.
Raju contended that prior sanction was not required in Yadav’s case, as he was neither the final decision-maker nor the recommending authority. Opposing this, senior advocate Kapil Sibal argued that no investigation could proceed without prior approval and questioned the timing of the CBI’s action, noting that the agency had filed another chargesheet nearly nine years after the matter was earlier closed.
Earlier, the Delhi High Court, on March 24, had also refused to quash the FIR, holding that Section 17A—introduced in 2018—applies prospectively, while the alleged offences date back to 2004–2009.
The case pertains to Group D appointments in the West Central Zone of Indian Railways in Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh, during Yadav’s tenure as Railway Minister between 2004 and 2009. It is alleged that appointments were made in exchange for land parcels transferred in the names of his family members or associates.
Justice Ravinder Dudeja, in his order, held that the absence of prior sanction did not invalidate the inquiry, FIR, investigation, or subsequent cognisance orders. The court also observed that the alleged acts did not fall within the scope of official decision-making functions protected under Section 17A.
The High Court dismissed Yadav’s plea seeking quashing of three chargesheets filed in 2022, 2023, and 2024, as well as the cognisance orders. It further noted that the case had progressed significantly and that a belated technical challenge could disrupt the orderly administration of criminal justice.
The CBI had opposed the petition on grounds of delay, arguing that it was filed at the stage of framing of charges and that Section 17A was not applicable in this case.
The FIR in the matter was registered on May 18, 2022, against Yadav and others, including his wife, two daughters, unidentified public officials, and private individuals. All accused are currently out on bail.
Yadav’s petition challenging the framing of charges remains pending before the High Court. On January 9, the trial court ordered the framing of charges, which were formally framed on February 16 under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
Yadav has pleaded not guilty.
