SC refuses to stay trial, exempts Lalu Yadav’s appearance in railway jobs case
Yadav moved the Supreme Court against the May 29 interim Delhi high court order, refusing to stay the trial while scheduling the hearing of his petition to quash the case in August
The Supreme Court on Friday refused to stay the trial against Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD) chief Lalu Prasad Yadav in a case related to the appointments made during his tenure as the railway minister, allegedly in exchange for land gifted or transferred to his family members or associates. It exempted Yadav from personal presence during the trial.
Yadav moved the Supreme Court against the May 29 interim Delhi high court order, refusing to stay the trial while scheduling the hearing of his petition to quash the case in August. The Supreme Court cited the pendency of the proceedings in the high court and refused to interfere. It requested the high court to expedite the hearing on Yadav’s plea.
The Supreme Court directed Yadav to pursue his challenge in the high court. “We will not stay the high court order. ...we can direct his personal presence during the trial to be dispensed with. This is such a small matter, let the matter continue before the high court,” said a bench of justices MM Sundresh and N Kotiswar Singh.
Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for Yadav, called it the most unfortunate case. He said the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) filed the First Information Report (FIR) in 2022 for allegations about the period when Yadav was the minister from 2004 to 2009. Sibal said the probe could not have started without the sanction under the Prevention of Corruption Act’s Section 17-A.
Additional solicitor general SV Raju, who represented the CBI, opposed Yadav’s petition, saying the high court is yet to decide the matter. “He [Yadav] is not covered under Section 17-A...”
Sibal said the CBI sought the sanction under the section for other accused who are government officers, leaving out Yadav, who was the railway minister during the relevant time.
In his appeal, Yadav said the CBI filed the case after a 14-year delay. He sought the quashing, saying the CBI had to first obtain the mandatory sanction from the central government under section 17-A, which relates to inquiry against public servants into offences relatable to decisions taken or recommendations made in discharge of official functions or duties.
Yadav argued that the trial court went ahead with the proceedings without the sanction.
The high court said Yadav would be at liberty to raise his contentions before the trial court at the stage of consideration of the charges. “This would be rather an added opportunity to the petitioner to put forth his point and get the same adjudicated.”
The trial court has taken cognisance of CBI’s three charge sheets in the case. The trial is at the stage of arguments on the charges.
Yadav argued in the high court that he should have the remedy of setting aside the FIR as it was void in law due to the violation of Section 17-A requirement. The CBI told the high court that the section was included in the law through a 2018 amendment.
Andhra Pradesh chief minister N Chandrababu Naidu’s plea on whether this amendment would apply to offences allegedly committed before 2018 remains pending in the Supreme Court. A two-judge bench, which heard the Naidu case, gave differing verdicts, following which the matter was referred to a larger bench.
