Delhi High Court rejects Lalu Yadav’s plea in land-for-job case, calling it ‘baseless’

New Delhi: delhi high court On Tuesday, RJD president and former railway minister Lalu Prasad Yadav, seeking quashing of the CBI FIR in the so-called land-for-employment case, dismissed the plea, holding that the petition had “no legal basis”. The order, passed by Justice Ravinder Dudeja, effectively allowed the investigation and related proceedings to continue.The petition challenges the FIR registered on May 18, 2022 and three chargesheets filed in 2022, 2023 and 2024 and the order passing the adjudication. However, the court rejected all the grounds raised by Yadav and held that there was no legal basis to intervene at this stage.Yadav argued that the entire proceedings were invalid in the absence of prior sanction under Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for him, argued that the alleged conduct occurred when Yadav was railway minister from 2004 to 2009 and was therefore part of his official duties and therefore required prior approval before any investigation.Additional Solicitor General SV Raju, appearing before the CBI, opposed the plea and argued that no such sanction was required. He maintained that decisions about appointments were taken directly by the general manager and not the minister, so the protection of section 17A did not apply.The Supreme Court had earlier heard detailed arguments from both sides and set aside time for written arguments before issuing a ruling.The case relates to irregular appointments in Group D posts in the Central and Western Zone of Indian Railways, which is headquartered in Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh. The CBI alleged that transfer of land to Yadav’s family members or associates was in exchange for providing employment opportunities.The FIR names Yadav as several accused, including his wife, two daughters, unidentified public officials and individuals.In his plea, Yadav also referred to the serious delay and pointed out that although the earlier investigation had been concluded with a report before the competent court, the FIR was filed almost 14 years after the alleged incident. He argued that reopening the case without disclosing those 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 inquiry and reiterated that without Section 17A approval, the investigation proceedings were invalid from the outset.The High Court rejected the arguments, finding the defense lacked merit, clearing the way for the case to proceed.