Land-For-Jobs Scam: Supreme Court Refuses To Quash FIR In Lalu Yadav's Case, Allows Section 17A Plea At Trial

The bench of Justices MM Sundresh and N Kotiswar Singh was hearing Yadav’s plea challenging the proceedings arising out of allegations that land parcels were obtained in exchange for railway jobs during his tenure as Union Railway Minister.

During the hearing, Additional Solicitor General SV Raju opposed the plea, arguing that prior approval under Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act was not required in Yadav’s case. He contended that the provision applies only to decision-making or recommending authorities, and that Yadav did not fall within that category. “Our case is that Section 17A applies only if the person is the decision-making or recommending authority. He is neither,” the ASG submitted, adding that approvals had been obtained for over 30 officials involved in the case, and there was no reason to omit Yadav if it were required.

The Bench, however, questioned this stance, noting the prosecution’s own case that Yadav, being at the apex of the ministry, had allegedly influenced decisions. “If your case is that he influenced decisions by virtue of his position, then the effect of such recommendation: formal or informal, will have to be examined,” Justice Sundresh observed, indicating the complexity in excluding the applicability of Section 17A.

Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for Yadav, argued that the High Court had rejected the quashing plea primarily on the ground that Section 17A operates prospectively and does not apply to offences allegedly committed between 2004 and 2009.

Sibal contended that the prosecution’s own case was that Yadav used his official position as Railway Minister to influence appointments, which would bring his actions squarely within the ambit of “official duty,” thereby attracting the protection under Section 17A. “You cannot investigate without sanction. Section 19 comes at the stage of trial, but Section 17A applies at the stage of investigation,” Sibal argued, adding that the issue was raised promptly after cognisance was taken on the chargesheet. He further criticised the delay in prosecution, pointing out that a supplementary chargesheet was filed nearly nine years after the alleged closure of the case on similar grounds.

After hearing both sides, the Court declined to adjudicate on the merits of the legal issue concerning the applicability of Section 17A at this stage. Instead, it granted liberty to Yadav to raise all legal objections before the trial court. “We are not expressing any opinion on whether Section 17A is prospective or retrospective. The petitioner is at liberty to raise the issue at the stage of trial,” the Bench observed.

The Court directed that Yadav’s personal appearance before the trial court be dispensed with, offering him interim relief in the proceedings. The Bench also clarified that the observations made by the High Court would not preclude Yadav from raising the issue afresh during trial.

While Sibal pressed for stronger protection, cautioning that the absence of interim relief could result in prejudice, including conviction before the legal issue is settled, the Court maintained its limited intervention.

In a related news, the trial court in March had rejected pleas filed by former Bihar Chief Minister Lalu Prasad Yadav and his wife, former Chief Minister Rabri Devi, seeking access to documents not relied upon by the prosecution in the land-for-jobs case. Special Judge (PC Act) Vishal Gogne of the Rouse Avenue Courts dismissed the applications, along with similar pleas by other accused, holding that there is no automatic right for the defence to obtain such unrelied documents at this stage of trial.