Land-for-Jobs Case: Delhi Court Denies Lalu Yadav, Rabri Devi Access To ‘Unrelied’ CBI Documents

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.

The Court clarified that the scheme of criminal trial requires the prosecution to first lead evidence based on documents it relies upon, and that unrelied documents cannot be demanded as a precondition for cross-examination.

“In the absence of even a fledgling defence or a minimum projection of his defence, the accused cannot be permitted to introduce wanton documents into trial,” the Court observed, adding that no prejudice would be caused to the accused if such requests were declined.

The case stems from allegations by the Central Bureau of Investigation that during his tenure as Union Railway Minister between 2004 and 2009, Lalu Prasad Yadav facilitated appointments to Group D posts in the Railways in exchange for land parcels transferred to his family at nominal prices.

According to the agency, several job aspirants or their relatives allegedly transferred land in Patna and other locations to the Yadav family or associated entities as part of a quid pro quo arrangement, without any formal recruitment process.

The accused have denied the allegations, terming them politically motivated.

Senior Advocate Maninder Singh, appearing for Lalu Yadav and Rabri Devi, argued that access to unrelied documents was necessary for effective cross-examination of key prosecution witnesses, including approvers.

However, the Court rejected this contention, observing that allowing such requests would distort the trial process and shift its focus away from the prosecution’s relied evidence.

“A thing or an act shall not be done only because it can be done,” the Court remarked, emphasising that unrelied documents cannot be provided as a routine practice merely for convenience.

The Court further noted that settled law requires only a list of unrelied documents to be furnished to the accused, and such documents can ordinarily be sought at the stage of defence evidence, subject to specific justification.

It also recorded that the accused had already been supplied with a list of such documents and had the opportunity to inspect them during the investigation stage.

Finding no exceptional circumstances to depart from established legal principles, the Court held that there was no justification to allow the applications.

“The court does not detect any circumstances of non-ordinary nature which would justify the supplanting of trial upon relied documents by a trial upon unrelied documents,” it concluded.