Lalu Yadav’s Plea to Dismiss CBI Land-for-Jobs FIR Rejected by Delhi HC

The Delhi High Court on Tuesday dismissed a petition filed by Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD) Chief and former Railway Minister Lalu Prasad Yadav seeking to quash a Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) FIR in the long‑running land‑for‑jobs corruption case, allowing the probe and subsequent legal proceedings to continue. The bench of Justice Ravinder Dudeja ruled that the plea lacked merit and did not warrant interference with the investigation.

The land‑for‑jobs case centres on allegations that during Lalu’s tenure as railway minister between 2004 and 2009, Group D posts in the West Central Railway zone were irregularly filled in return for land parcels transferred to the names of his family members or associates. The CBI registered the FIR in May 2022 following a preliminary inquiry, and has since filed multiple chargesheets naming Lalu, his wife Rabri Devi, daughter Misa Bharti and others as accused.

In his petition, Lalu argued that the CBI initiated the investigation and registered the FIR without obtaining prior sanction required under Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, contending that the absence of such approval rendered the proceedings void and an abuse of process. He claimed the prior closure of an earlier inquiry showed that a fresh investigation was unwarranted.

However, the High Court rejected these contentions, holding that “the absence of prior approval does not vitiate the preliminary inquiry, registration of FIR or cognisance orders passed by the special judge” and describing the petition as “devoid of merits”. The detailed order is yet to be uploaded, but the bench’s oral remarks made clear that it saw no basis to quash the FIR or the related chargesheets.

Also Read: Delhi Court Refuses Lalu Prasad Yadav’s Demand for 1,600 Unrelied Trial Documents

Legal experts say the decision underscores the court’s reluctance to intervene at the pre‑trial stage in high‑profile corruption investigations unless there is compelling evidence of legal infirmity. The land‑for‑jobs case, which has been progressing through trial court proceedings in Rouse Avenue District Court, continues to be a significant legal and political flashpoint.

With the High Court’s refusal to halt the case, the CBI’s probe and subsequent trial are poised to move forward. Observers note that the judgment could have implications for other challenges to corruption investigations initiated without what defendants claim is mandatory sanction, especially as the legality of Section 17A itself remains the subject of broader judicial scrutiny.

Also Read: GK-1 Residents vs Medanta: Why South Delhi's Posh Locality Is Fighting a 400-Bed Hospital