|
The Supreme Court on Monday refused to grant immediate relief to former Bihar Chief Minister Lalu Prasad Yadav in his plea seeking quashing of proceedings arising out of the alleged land-for-jobs scam.
A Bench of Justices MM Sundresh and N. Kotiswar Singh, however, granted limited relief by exempting Lalu Prasad Yadav from personal appearance before the trial court. The Court clarified that the trial court is free to examine the merits of the case and decide the matter in accordance with the law. Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for Yadav, argued that the alleged recommendations for appointments made during his tenure as Railway Minister were not in his official capacity. He contended that a sanction under Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2018, would therefore not be required for initiating an investigation. On the other hand, Additional Solicitor General S. V. Raju submitted that Yadav could still be prosecuted, arguing that the acts in question were linked to his role while holding public office. He maintained that the absence of prior sanction would not invalidate the proceedings in the present case. During the hearing, the Court stated that there were two key issues: the scope and applicability of Section 17A under the Prevention of Corruption Act (PC Act) and whether the provision operates prospectively. The Court observed that even if it is assumed that Section 17A may not apply, other provisions of law could still be attracted. It, however, left it open for the trial court to examine the merits of the case. The bench also clarified that the observations made by the Delhi High Court in denying relief to Yadav would not come in the way of the trial court. The Court also questioned whether actions such as recommendations for appointments, if not strictly official decisions, could still be construed as acts connected to public office. It noted that the effect of such actions would need careful consideration. After hearing brief arguments, the Court declined to interfere at this stage and left the legal issues open to be decided by the trial court. It permitted Yadav to raise all available objections, including those relating to the sanction under Section 17A, at the appropriate stage during trial. "The issues are left open for adjudication by the trial court," the Bench noted. It added that Yadav's personal appearance need not be insisted upon during the proceedings. Earlier, the Delhi High Court had, on March 24, 2026, refused to quash the FIR and subsequent chargesheets filed in 2022, 2023, and 2024. The case relates to alleged irregular appointments to Group-D posts in the Indian Railways between 2004 and 2009, during Yadav's tenure as Railway Minister, allegedly in exchange for land. Section 17A mandates prior government approval before investigating a public servant for acts connected with official duties, an issue that remains central to the dispute and has now been left open for determination at trial. (ANI)
|
