Supreme Court Declines To Stay Trial Court Proceedings In Land-For-Jobs Scam Case Against Lalu Prasad Yadav; Dispenses With Personal Appearance

A Bench of Justice M.M. Sundresh and Justice N. Kotiswar Singh observed, “This SLP being against an interim order, we are not inclined to interfere, except by observing that at the time of disposing the final matter, the observations made in the impugned order will not stand in the way”

Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal appeared for Yadav, while Additional Solicitor General S.V. Raju appeared for the CBI.

At the outset, Justice Sundresh indicated disinclination to interfere with the interim order, stating, “We will dismiss the appeal and we will say that let the main matter be decided. Why should we keep this small matter?”

Sibal submitted that the case against Yadav was legally unsustainable, contending that the CBI investigation was initiated without prior sanction under Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, which is mandatory. He pointed out that while such sanction had been obtained for other public servants, none was sought in Yadav’s case. “He was a Minister from 2005 to 2009. The FIR was filed in 2021,” Sibal argued.

Raju, opposing the plea, maintained that Section 17A did not apply to Yadav. The Bench clarified that it would not enter into the merits of the case. “We can’t decide on merits,” Justice Sundresh remarked. To Sibal’s submission that the High Court ought to hear the matter fully, the Bench responded, “We will indicate that they will hear you. We will protect you by saying that your presence may not be required.”

Passing its order, the Court held, “This SLP being against an interim order, we are not inclined to interfere, except by observing that at the time of disposing the final matter, the observations made in the impugned order will not stand in the way. Considering the facts and circumstances, we are inclined to pass a further order to the effect that the petitioner may not be personally present. His appearance is dispensed with. We request the High Court to expedite the hearing.”

The proceedings arise from Yadav’s challenge to the High Court’s May 29, 2024 order refusing to stay the trial in the CBI case concerning Group D appointments made during his tenure as Railway Minister (2004–2009). The appointments were allegedly made in exchange for land parcels transferred to persons linked to Yadav's family. The FIR was registered in May 2022, and three charge sheets were filed in 2022, 2023, and 2024.

He has contended that the order disregards the statutory protection under Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The petition asserts that the High Court “erroneously and wrongly rejected the stay application with a direction to the Petitioner to raise the same legal issues related to sanction before the Ld. Special Court, disregarding the fact that the Ld. Special Court has already recorded and dealt with the said issues and after discussion on the said issues, the Ld. Special Court had passed the cognizance order.”

It is further submitted, “…the preliminary enquiry was registered in 2021 and the present FIR was originally registered on 18.05.2022, public servants were arraigned, and therefore the said FIR was illegally registered without the legally mandatory approval under Section 17A of the PC Act.” According to Yadav, the allegations relate to recommendations he made as Minister of Railways, which cannot be subjected to inquiry without prior sanction. The petition submits, “The manufactured case by the Respondent (CBI) is that the Petitioner has allegedly used his undue power and given recommendation to appoint the candidates as substitute in group D job in different zones of Indian Railways to benefit co-accused in getting land in their names, (although nothing has been brought on record since registration of FIR on 18.05.2022 to show that the Petitioner or any of his family member got the land without consideration).”

The petition contends that the entire process of inquiry and investigation stands vitiated in the absence of prior approval under Section 17A, adding, “The initiation of the enquiry and the registration of the FIR is non est as both the enquiry and investigation continue till date without mandatory approval under Section 17A of the PC Act (as amended on 26.07.2018).” Citing precedents, the petition points out, “The very registration of the FIR was barred by Section 17A of the PC Act as it related to official acts of public servants named therein. The FIR being barred under Section 17A, the filing of charge sheets, passing of cognizance orders and consequent actions must fall.”

The petition states, “The prior approval under Section 17A of the PC Act is admittedly not granted. Therefore, the prosecution is wanting to build its edifice on shifting sands. Sanction obtained post facto under Section 19 of the PC Act cannot cure the threshold illegality of not having prior approval under Section 17A of the PC Act. Therefore, the foundation being infirm the structure cannot be sustained.”

The petition further states that he had no role in the actual appointments and that the record fails to disclose any offence. The petition avers, “The Petitioner did not had jurisdiction, power of any appointment nor had anything to do with the alleged appointment of the candidates in group D job in India Railways and the perusal of all the materials available on record clearly does not make out the commission of any offence against the Petitioner.”

Asserting that an illegal prosecution is violating his fundamental rights, Yadav sought relief from the Apex Court, urging it to intervene in light of the “illegally launched, mala fide and tainted investigation being carried out by the Respondent in complete abuse of its power.”

Advocates Mudit Gupta and Varun Jain have filed the petition.

Cause Title: Lalu Prasad Yadav v. Central Bureau of Investigation (SLP(Crl) No.10097/2025)