3 min readNew DelhiAug 8, 2025 08:19 PM IST
First published on: Aug 8, 2025 at 08:19 PM IST
Standing firmly with his court staff, a judge at a Delhi court Friday pulled up a lawyer for being “over-assertive” with them. “My court staff is an extension of me. They’re government servants. They need to be respected as much as the Judge,” Special Judge Dr Vishal Gogne of Rouse Avenue Court told the lawyer.
The exchange happened during the hearing in the land-for-jobs corruption case lodged by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) against former Bihar CM Lalu Yadav and his family. The judge noted that the lawyer for one of the accused was insisting that the court decide on an application filed by his client.
“Why didn’t you give me this date and that date… sometimes we get over excited and want an order in our favour. You can’t enter into a jostling situation with the court,” Judge Gogne said.
“Your Honour, that was not my intention at all,” said Advocate Vikas Walia. He was representing a school principal, among the 103 accused in the case.
Judge Gogne said, “You can be talking about these things as a matter of right, but not with so much assertion, as if the court is duty-bound to grant you all your wishes.”
Earlier, the principal had appealed in court that a letter from him dated June 27, 2022, to the Investigating Officer (IO) of the case be treated as a confessional statement and, therefore, be disregarded by the court.
“The court finds the insistence of the Ld. Counsel for A-20 upon the application being decided before he may lead other arguments to be a conscious ploy to seek a truncated and piecemeal as well as premature finding from the court on issues relating to charge,” the court said in its order rejecting the prayer.
“More so, when the document in question is a letter from the accused to the IO and is not cited as a confession or a disclosure statement by the CBI. The heightened insistence of the Ld. Counsel is perceived by the court as a disguise for delay,” it added.
Judge Gogne repeated that the issue at hand was a matter of trial. “When charge itself is not contemplated as a mini-trial, no such exercise can be conducted for appreciating the tenor or admissibility of a document even prior to an order on charge,” he said.
The CBI’s case against Lalu pertains to the alleged transfer of land at cheap rates to him and his family in return for appointments made in Group-D substitute jobs in the Central Railways between 2004 and 2009, when he was the Railways minister under the Congress-led UPA-1 government.
Through its multiple chargesheets, the central probe agency claimed that there were several discrepancies in the documents furnished by those who were given jobs in exchange for land, such as candidates having sequential roll numbers on their caste and residence certificates.
The judge noted that the lawyer for one of the accused was insisting that the court decide on an application filed by his client. (File photo) 
Share
