The CBI told the Delhi High Court that Lalu Prasad Yadav had no official role or public duty in railway appointments during his tenure as Union Railway Minister. The agency argued that decisions were taken by General Managers, making prior sanction under the Prevention of Corruption Act unnecessary.
The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) on Tuesday strongly opposed the plea filed by Lalu Prasad Yadav seeking to quash the FIR registered against him in the alleged land-for-jobs scam. The matter was heard by Justice Ravinder Dudeja, where the agency argued that Lalu Prasad had no official role or public duty in the process of railway appointments during his tenure as Union Railway Minister.
Appearing for the CBI, Solicitor General S V Raju submitted that the powers related to appointments were vested with the General Managers of the Railways and not with the Railway Minister.
ALSO READ: Land-for-Job Case: Delhi Court to Decide on Charges Against Lalu Prasad Yadav on Friday
Therefore, according to the agency, there was no requirement to obtain prior sanction under Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act before initiating proceedings against Lalu Prasad Yadav.
Placing the agency’s stand before the court, Raju said,
“Our case is, in discharge of his official duties or functions, he (Lalu) was not required to make any recommendation or take a decision. Therefore, whatever decision or recommendation is made, it was not in discharge of his official duties. The recommendation or decision could only be taken by the general managers. Minister had no role,”.
He further emphasised that the alleged acts cannot be linked to Lalu Prasad’s public duties as Railway Minister and therefore fall outside the protection provided under Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Raju added,
“Therefore, in (matters of) appointment, taking the decision to appoint, the railway minister had no role. It was not relatable to the discharge of his public duties as a railway minister. So, Lalu had no role,”.
Senior advocate D P Singh, appearing as Additional Solicitor General for the CBI, also informed the court that due sanction under Section 17A had already been obtained for proceeding against the concerned General Managers who were involved in the appointments.
After hearing the submissions, Justice Dudeja listed the matter for further hearing next week.
The land-for-jobs case relates to alleged irregular appointments made to Group D posts in the West Central Zone of the Indian Railways, headquartered at Jabalpur in Madhya Pradesh, during Lalu Prasad Yadav’s tenure as Railway Minister between 2004 and 2009.
According to the CBI, these appointments were allegedly made in exchange for land parcels that were either gifted or transferred by the selected candidates in the name of Lalu Prasad’s family members or close associates.
The FIR in the case was registered on May 18, 2022, naming Lalu Prasad Yadav, his wife, two daughters, unidentified public servants, and several private individuals as accused.
In his petition before the Delhi High Court, Lalu Prasad has sought quashing of the FIR as well as three charge sheets filed by the CBI in 2022, 2023, and 2024, along with all consequential orders taking cognisance of the offences.
Earlier, senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for Lalu Prasad Yadav, had argued that the entire investigation, including the FIR and charge sheets, was illegal since the CBI failed to obtain mandatory prior approval under Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act before initiating the probe.
The petition further pointed out that the FIR was registered in 2022, nearly 14 years after the alleged events, despite earlier enquiries by the CBI having been closed after the filing of a closure report before the competent court.
Calling the fresh investigation an abuse of law, the petition stated,
“Initiation of the fresh investigation in concealment of the previous investigations and its closure reports is nothing but an abuse of the process of law. The Petitioner is being made to suffer through an illegal, motivated investigation, in clear violation of his fundamental right to fair investigation,”.
The plea further asserted that both the preliminary enquiries and the subsequent investigation were invalid due to the absence of mandatory approval under Section 17A of the Act.
It said,
“Without such approval, any enquiry/inquiry/investigation undertaken would be void ab initio. Section 17A of the PC Act provides a filter from vexatious litigation. The present scenario of regime revenge and political vendetta is exactly what Section 17A seeks to restrict by protecting innocent persons.”
The petition concluded by arguing that the absence of sanction strikes at the root of the proceedings, stating,
“The initiation of investigation without such approval vitiates the entire proceedings since inception, and the same is a jurisdictional error,”.
Click Here to Read More Reports On IRCTC Scam Case
