Land-for-Jobs Scam: Delhi High Court Reserves Order on Lalu Prasad Yadav’s Plea to Quash CBI Case

The Delhi High Court has reserved its verdict on Lalu Prasad Yadav’s petition seeking to quash the Central Bureau of Investigation case in the alleged land-for-jobs scam. The court heard arguments on the need for prior sanction under anti-corruption law and objections raised by the CBI on maintainability and delay.

Land-for-Jobs Case: Lalu Prasad Yadav Had No Role in Railway Appointments, Says CBI Before Delhi High Court

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.

Constitutional Validity of Section 17A PC Act: Supreme Court Delivers Split Verdict; Justice Nagarathna Calls It Unconstitutional

The Supreme Court delivered a split verdict on the constitutional validity of Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act. While Justice K.V. Viswanathan upheld the provision with safeguards, Justice B.V. Nagarathna dissented, calling it unconstitutional.

Supreme Court Reserves Judgment on 2018 PC Act Amendments Challenge: “How Does It Help Governance If Honest Decisions Are Targeted?”

Today, On 6th August, The Supreme Court has reserved its verdict on petitions challenging the 2018 amendments to the Prevention of Corruption Act. It questioned how governance benefits when honest decisions are attacked by frivolous online allegations against officers.

PMLA Amendments Challenged In Supreme Court | “Section 17A Can Protect the Honest, But Also the Dishonest”: Justice Nagarathna

Supreme Court hears challenge to Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, raising concerns over misuse. Justice Nagarathna warns: “It can protect honest officers — or dishonest ones.”

“He Can Raise the 17A Issue Before Trial Court”: Supreme Court Refuses Relief to Lalu in Land-for-Jobs Case

Supreme Court declines to intervene in Lalu Prasad Yadav’s plea on land-for-jobs scam. ASG SV Raju urges costs, says, “Big pockets file multiple applications.”

[MUDA SCAM] Karnataka High Court Defers Hearing on Siddaramaiah’s Plea Challenge to Governor’s Sanction| Scheduled On January 20

Chief Minister Siddaramaiah’s plea against a Governor-sanctioned investigation into alleged corruption in the Mysuru Urban Development Authority has been postponed to January 20. He contests the legality of the sanction, claiming political motivations behind the allegations. The Lokayukta is investigating claims of improper land allocations to his wife amidst ongoing pressures from the BJP.

[MUDA SCAM] Karnataka High Court Set To Hear CM Siddaramaiah’s Appeal On Nov 23

Karnataka: On Thursday(14th Nov): Karnataka Chief Minister Siddaramaiah’s appeal against Governor Thawar Chand Gehlot’s sanction to prosecute him in the MUDA scam case will be heard by a Division Bench on November 23. Siddaramaiah contests allegations of corruption involving land granted to his wife, previously upheld by a single-judge bench that dismissed his plea in September.

[MUDA Case] “Governor’s Approval Under Section 17A of PCA & Doesn’t Constitute Sanction Under Section 218 of BNSS”: Karnataka HC Upholds Probe Against CM Siddaramaiah

Today, On 24th September, under Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, a corruption investigation against former Karnataka Chief Minister Siddaramaiah was approved by the Governor, upheld by the High Court. However, the court denied prosecution approval under Section 218 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, emphasizing safeguards for public officials.

[Breaking] MUDA Scam: Karnataka HC Rejects CM Siddaramaiah’s Plea, Upholds Governor’s Sanction to Prosecute CM

The Karnataka HC Today (Sept 24) dismissed Chief Minister Siddaramaiah’s petition challenging Governor Thawar Chand Gehlot’s decision to sanction his prosecution in the alleged MUDA land scam case. Bench ruled the Governor could take an “independent decision” and that Mr Gehlot “did apply his mind in abundance”. There is, therefore, “no fault in the Governor’s actions, as far as the order (to prosecute the Chief Minister) is concerned”, the court said.