No Relief For Lalu, Delhi HC Rejects RJD Chief’s Plea To Quash CBI FIR In Land-for-Jobs Case

New Delhi: The Delhi High Court on Tuesday refused to grant relief to Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD) chief Lalu Prasad in the alleged land-for-jobs scam, dismissing his plea to quash the CBI FIR and allowing the investigation to continue.

A Bench of Justice Ravinder Dudeja held that Lalu’s petition was “devoid of merit”, rejecting his challenge to the FIR registered in 2022 as well as three chargesheets filed subsequently in 2022, 2023 and 2024, along with the orders by which cognisance was taken.

Lalu, a former Union Railway Minister and Bihar Chief Minister, had argued that the proceedings were legally untenable due to the absence of prior sanction under Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Appearing for him, senior advocate Kapil Sibal contended that the alleged acts were carried out during Lalu’s tenure as Railway Minister and were therefore part of his official duties, making prior approval mandatory before any probe.

Opposing the plea, Additional Solicitor General S.V. Raju, representing the Central Bureau of Investigation, argued that no such sanction was required. He maintained that appointments were made by railway general managers and not directly by the minister, and hence the protection under Section 17A would not apply.

The case pertains to alleged irregular appointments to Group D posts in the West Central Zone of Indian Railways, headquartered in Jabalpur, during Lalu’s tenure between 2004 and 2009. According to the CBI, jobs were allegedly granted in exchange for land parcels transferred in the names of Lalu’s family members and associates.

The FIR, registered on May 18, 2022, names Lalu, his wife, two daughters, unidentified public officials and private individuals. In his petition, Lalu had also flagged a significant delay, noting that the FIR was lodged nearly 14 years after the alleged incidents, despite earlier inquiries having been closed.

He further alleged that the probe was politically motivated and violated his right to a fair investigation, arguing that reopening the case without disclosing earlier closure reports amounted to an abuse of process.

However, the High Court rejected these contentions, clearing the way for the investigation and trial proceedings in the case to move forward.

ALSO READ: Last-Minute Train Ticket Cancellations Get Costlier; Here’s What Railways’ Revised Rules Mean For You