Land-for-jobs case: Supreme Court allows Lalu Yadav to raise Section 17A plea at trial

Yadav has contended that the graft charges attributed to him were deemed to have been committed in the course of discharge of his official duties, and hence, prior sanction was needed even to start the investigation. According to him, in the absence of such a sanction, the initiation of the preliminary enquiry, investigation, and all consequential proceedings are non est in the eyes of the law.

Appearing for Yadav, Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal said the Delhi High Court had already ruled regarding the applicability of Section 17A to the case.

The high court held that Section 17A, which was introduced in 2018, is prospective in operation and has no application to offences alleged to have been committed by Lalu Yadav between 2004 and 2009.

“Two issues have been raised. One is on the scope and applicability of Section 17A, and the other is on the prospective application and operation of the said provision. After hearing the grievance, we do not wish to say anything further. We state that the issue pertaining to the application of Section 17A, whether it is prospective or retrospective, is left open and to be decided at the appropriate stage,” the bench said in its order.

“Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances, the appearance of the petitioner is dispensed with unless the same is required. Liberty is also given to the petitioner to raise the legal issue at the time of trial,” the bench said.

Additional Solicitor General (ASG) SV Raju, appearing for CBI, said the provision would apply only if the accused is the “recommending authority” or a “decision-making authority,” which Yadav was not in the case.

Justice Sundresh said, “It is very difficult to sustain your own argument. He is at the top of the ministry. The question will be what will be the effect of the recommendation made or taken, though not officially.”

Raju also pointed to the delay on Yadav’s part in raising the Section 17A argument and said the quashing petition was moved only years after the investigation was concluded.

Lalu Yadav and his family have been accused by CBI of enabling the recruitment of candidates for Group D railway substitute jobs, who allegedly transferred land parcels to them as a quid pro quo.

CBI has alleged that land was transferred at cheap rates to the RJD chief and his family in return for appointments to Group-D substitute jobs in the Central Railways between 2004 and 2009, when Lalu Yadav was the Railway Minister.