NEW DELHI: The Delhi high court on Tuesday dismissed a plea by RJD chief and former railway minister Lalu Prasad Yadav seeking to quash a CBI FIR in the alleged land-for-jobs case, holding that the petition was “devoid of merit”. The order was passed by justice Ravinder Dudeja, effectively allowing the investigation and related proceedings to continue.The petition had challenged the FIR registered on May 18, 2022, along with three chargesheets filed in 2022, 2023 and 2024, and the orders through which cognisance was taken. However, the court rejected all grounds raised by Yadav, concluding that there was no legal basis to interfere at this stage.Israel Iran WarUS-Israel-Iran War News Live Updates: Amazon Web Services ‘disrupted’ following drone attack in Bahrain; Saudi, UAE mull joining Iran warPossible US-Iran Talks In Islamabad: White House calls situation ‘sensitive’ and ‘fluid’; oil prices tumbleTrump Shifts Iran War Push: says Hegseth urged early strikes; extends deadline for attacksYadav had argued that the entire proceedings were invalid due to the absence of prior sanction under Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Appearing for him, senior advocate Kapil Sibal contended that the alleged acts took place during Yadav’s tenure as Railway Minister between 2004 and 2009 and were therefore part of his official duties, making prior approval mandatory before any investigation.Opposing the plea, additional solicitor general S.V. Raju, appearing for the CBI, argued that no such sanction was required. He maintained that decisions regarding appointments were taken by general managers rather than the Minister directly, and thus the protection under Section 17A would not apply.The HC had earlier heard detailed submissions from both sides and allowed time for written arguments before delivering its verdict.The case pertains to alleged irregular appointments to Group D posts in the west central zone of the Indian Railways, based in Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh. The CBI has alleged that jobs were granted in exchange for land parcels transferred to Yadav’s family members or associates.The FIR names Yadav among several accused, including his wife, two daughters, unidentified public officials and private individuals.In his plea, Yadav also cited a significant delay, noting that the FIR was filed nearly 14 years after the alleged incidents, despite earlier enquiries having been closed with a report submitted before a competent court. He argued that reopening the case without disclosing these closure reports amounted to an abuse of process.The petition further claimed that the investigation was politically motivated and violated his right to a fair probe, reiterating that the absence of approval under Section 17A rendered the proceedings void from the outset.Rejecting these contentions, the High Court held that the plea lacked merit, clearing the way for the case to proceed.About the AuthorTOI News DeskThe TOI News Desk comprises a dedicated and tireless team of journalists who operate around the clock to deliver the most current and comprehensive news and updates to the readers of The Times of India worldwide. With an unwavering commitment to excellence in journalism, our team is at the forefront of gathering, verifying, and presenting breaking news, in-depth analysis, and insightful reports on a wide range of topics. The TOI News Desk is your trusted source for staying informed and connected to the ever-evolving global landscape, ensuring that our readers are equipped with the latest developments that matter most.”Read MoreEnd of ArticleFollow Us On Social MediaVideosManish Tewari Questions Relevance of Budget 2026 Amid Rising West Asia TensionsSupreme Court Raps Forces Over Gender Bias, Orders Justice For Women Officers In Historic RulingGovt Tightens Grip On GLP-1 Weight Loss Drugs Amid Rising Concerns Over Unauthorised SalesIndia, US Step Up Defence Talks As Elbridge Colby Visit And Jaishankar-Rubio Call Focus On West Asia“Pak Is Just Dysfunctional”: Fareed Zakaria Explains India-Pakistan Growth GapCentre’s Nod To 114 Rafales, 60 Transport Aircraft, And AEWC Systems In Major Air Force Upgrade PushIndia Issues RFI for Engine Test Complex, Facility To End India’s Foreign Engine Testing DependencyIndia, US Hold Talks As West Asia Crisis Raises Energy ConcernsTwo More Indian LPG Ships Pine Gas And Jag Vasant Transit Strait Of Hormuz Amid Iran-Israel War’India Moving Ahead With Resolve’: PM Modi’s Big Message On West Asia Conflict123Photostories5 healthy and rich sources of vitamin DInside Kylie Jenner’s luxury garage: The customised Rolls-Royce fleet of the beauty mogulUpcoming OTT releases of the week: ‘Mardaani 3’, ‘Bait’, and moreTamannaah Bhatia just introduced the lehenga style that will rule 20265 unusual morning habits of US presidents you never knewVaibhav Suryavanshi Home: Vaibhav Suryavanshi’s modest home in Samastipur, Bihar tells the story of hard work, determination and family sacrifices behind the success of India’s young cricket prodigyGoddess Durga symbols associated with your birth dateSiberian Husky: 7 reasons why this dog breed is good for childrenOn World Tuberculosis Day, doctors share early symptoms, debunk myths, and discuss treatment challengesHow wars changed food habits across countries123Hot PicksTrump Iran DealMohammad Bagher GhalibafSan Francisco AirportGold rate todayIncome Tax CalculatorPublic holidays March 2026Bank Holidays MarchTop TrendingGolden state warriors vs dallas mavericks injury reportPatrick MahomesJoe MazzullaColombian Military Plane CrashBrittany MahomesWWE Raw News RoundupSilver Rate TodayRajasthan 8th Class ResultTrump Iran DealBihar Board Science Topper
NEW DELHI: The Delhi high court on Tuesday dismissed a plea by RJD chief and former railway minister Lalu Prasad Yadav seeking to quash a CBI FIR in the alleged land-for-jobs case, holding that the petition was “devoid of merit”. The order was passed by justice Ravinder Dudeja, effectively allowing the investigation and related proceedings to continue.The petition had challenged the FIR registered on May 18, 2022, along with three chargesheets filed in 2022, 2023 and 2024, and the orders through which cognisance was taken. However, the court rejected all grounds raised by Yadav, concluding that there was no legal basis to interfere at this stage.Yadav had argued that the entire proceedings were invalid due to the absence of prior sanction under Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Appearing for him, senior advocate Kapil Sibal contended that the alleged acts took place during Yadav’s tenure as Railway Minister between 2004 and 2009 and were therefore part of his official duties, making prior approval mandatory before any investigation.Opposing the plea, additional solicitor general S.V. Raju, appearing for the CBI, argued that no such sanction was required. He maintained that decisions regarding appointments were taken by general managers rather than the Minister directly, and thus the protection under Section 17A would not apply.The HC had earlier heard detailed submissions from both sides and allowed time for written arguments before delivering its verdict.The case pertains to alleged irregular appointments to Group D posts in the west central zone of the Indian Railways, based in Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh. The CBI has alleged that jobs were granted in exchange for land parcels transferred to Yadav’s family members or associates.The FIR names Yadav among several accused, including his wife, two daughters, unidentified public officials and private individuals.In his plea, Yadav also cited a significant delay, noting that the FIR was filed nearly 14 years after the alleged incidents, despite earlier enquiries having been closed with a report submitted before a competent court. He argued that reopening the case without disclosing these closure reports amounted to an abuse of process.The petition further claimed that the investigation was politically motivated and violated his right to a fair probe, reiterating that the absence of approval under Section 17A rendered the proceedings void from the outset.Rejecting these contentions, the High Court held that the plea lacked merit, clearing the way for the case to proceed.
