SC refuses to defer framing of charges against Lalu in land-for-jobs scam

In a setback to RJD chief and former Bihar CM Lalu Prasad Yadav, the Supreme Court on Wednesday refused to entertain his petition seeking to defer framing of charges against him by the trial court in the land-for-jobs scam case.

However, a Bench of Justice MM Sundresh and Justice N Kotiswar Singh clarified that framing of charges by the trial court would not render infructuous his petition in the high court, seeking quashing of the case.

Yadav wanted the trial court proceedings to be deferred till the Delhi High Court concluded hearing on his plea seeking quashing of the case.

Earlier on July 18, the top court had refused to stay the trial proceedings in the CBI’s land-for-jobs case even as it asked the Delhi HC to expedite the hearing on his petition seeking quashing of the CBI FIR. It had also given him exemption from personal appearance before trial court in the case.

Noting that there was no compelling reason to stay the trial proceedings, the high court had on May 29 issued notice to the CBI on his plea for quashing of the CBI FIR and deferred the hearing to August 12.

The case related to Group D appointments in West Central Zone of the Indian Railways during Lalu Prasad’s tenure as the Railway Minister between 2004 and 2009, allegedly in return for land parcels ‘gifted’ by the recruits in the name of the RJD supremo’s family or associates.

An FIR was registered on May 18, 2022, against Yadav and others, including his wife, two daughters, unidentified public officials and private persons. The former chief minister said the FIR was lodged in 2022 — almost a 14-year delay — despite the CBI’s initial enquiries and investigations being closed after filing of closure report before the competent court.

However, Yadav called it “regime revenge and political vendetta" as the initiation of investigation without such approval vitiated the entire proceedings since inception with the being a “jurisdictional error".

He contended that “Initiation of the fresh investigation in the concealment of the previous investigations and its closure reports is nothing but an abuse of the process of law.”.

In his petition in the high court, Prasad sought the quashing of the FIR and three chargesheets filed in 2022, 2023 and 2024, and the subsequent orders of cognisance. He submitted that he was being made to suffer through an “illegal, motivated investigation" in violation of his fundamental right to a fair investigation.

India