Institute of Legal and Management Studies

The Supreme Court on Friday (July 18) refused to stay the trial proceedings in the case related to the land-for-jobs scam against former Bihar Chief Minister and RJD founder Lalu Prasad Yadav.

A bench comprising Justice MM Sundresh and Justice N Kotiswar Singh was hearing Yadav's petition challenging the Delhi High Court's refusal to stay the trial. On being told that the petition is only challenging an interim order of the High Court and the main matter is pending there, the bench observed that it will not interfere.

"We will not stay. We will dismiss the appeal and we will say that let the main matter be decided. Why should we keep this small matter?," Justice Sundresh said.

The bench however observed that he need not be personally present during the trial. The bench also requested the High Court to expedite the hearing of Yadav's petition challenging the cognizance taken by the trial court. With these observations, the bench disposed of his petition challenging the Delhi High Court's refusal to stay the trial.

Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal represented Lalu Prasad Yadav. Additional Solicitor General SV Raju appeared for the CBI.

He had sought stay by contending that there was no prior approval obtained by CBI under Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act (prior sanction before initiating investigation against public servant). The Delhi High Court while declining to stay the trial, observed that this was a ground which could be raised during the framing of charges.

During the hearing, ASG Raju submitted that S.17A sanction was not required in the present case as it pertained to offences which took place before the 2018 amendment (which insterted S.17A). In response, Sibal submitted, "The enthusiasm is telling. He was a Minister from 2005 to 2009. FIR filed in 2021. Investigation cannot start without a sanction. For all other government servants they have taken sanction except him."

The bench however said that it will not go into the merits of the matter at this stage.

Background

Yadav challenged a Delhi High Court order that refused to stay the trial court proceedings in the CBI's “land for jobs” case. The Delhi High Court had dismissed Yadav's interim stay application on the ground that there were no compelling reasons to halt the trial proceedings pending before a Special Judge at Rouse Avenue Courts.

Justice Ravinder Dudeja of the High Court issued notice on Yadav's main petition challenging the registration of the FIR, three chargesheets filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation, and the trial court orders taking cognizance of those chargesheets. However, he declined to stay the proceedings.

Before the High Court Sibal argued that the CBI had initiated the investigation without obtaining prior sanction under Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. He contended that this omission vitiated the proceedings from inception. He submitted that continuing with the trial without addressing the alleged lack of sanction would render the petition infructuous if charges are framed.

Section 17A mandates prior approval for inquiry or investigation against a public servant when the alleged offence relates to any recommendation made or decision taken by him in the discharge of his official functions. Yadav's petition asserts that the FIR and all subsequent actions, including filing of chargesheets and cognizance by the trial court - are void in the absence of this statutory sanction.

Senior Advocate DP Singh for the CBI opposed the plea and argued that the issue of Section 17A's applicability to offences under the unamended Prevention of Corruption Act is pending before a Larger Bench of the Supreme Court. He submitted that Yadav's objections could be raised during arguments on charge before the trial court.

Dismissing the stay application, the High Court said that Yadav remained free to urge all his contentions before the Special Judge, and there were no compelling grounds to halt the proceedings at this stage.

According to the CBI, the alleged offences relate to appointments made in Group-D posts in various Railway zones between 2004 and 2009, during Yadav's tenure as Union Railway Minister. In return for these appointments, it is alleged that candidates or their family members transferred their land in favour of Yadav's family members and a private company, M/s AK Infosystems Pvt Ltd, which was later acquired by the Yadav family. The CBI filed its chargesheet on October 10, 2022, against 16 accused persons, including Lalu Prasad Yadav, his wife Rabri Devi, and daughter Misa Bharti.

Case no. – SLP(Crl) No. 10097/2025

Case Title – Lalu Prasad Yadav v. Central Bureau of Investigation