Delhi High Court rejects Lalu Prasad Yadav’s plea to quash CBI FIR in land-for-jobs case

The Delhi High Court on Tuesday dismissed a plea by RJD chief and former Railway Minister Lalu Prasad Yadav seeking to quash the CBI FIR in the alleged land-for-jobs case, calling the petition “devoid of merit.” The bench of Justice Ravinder Dudeja passed the order after hearing detailed arguments from both sides.

The plea had challenged the FIR registered in 2022, along with three chargesheets filed in 2022, 2023, and 2024, and the orders by which cognisance was taken. Yadav argued that the proceedings were legally invalid due to the lack of prior sanction under Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, claiming the alleged acts occurred during his tenure as Railway Minister (2004–2009) and fell within his official duties.

Also Read: CBI court frames charges against Lalu Prasad Yadav and family


Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, representing Yadav, contended that prior approval was mandatory before initiating any inquiry or investigation in such cases. He also cited delays, noting that the FIR was lodged nearly 14 years after the alleged incidents, despite earlier inquiries being closed and reports submitted to competent courts. Yadav’s petition further alleged political motivation behind the investigation and a violation of his right to a fair probe.

Opposing the plea, Additional Solicitor General S.V. Raju appearing for the CBI, argued that no prior sanction was required, as decisions regarding Group D appointments in the West Central Zone of Indian Railways (Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh) were made by general managers and not directly by the Minister.

Also Read: 'Don't put cart before horse': Court rejects Lalu's plea seeking unrelied documents for trial

The case revolves around alleged irregular appointments to Group D posts in exchange for land parcels transferred in the names of Yadav’s family members or associates. The FIR, registered on May 18, 2022, names Yadav, his wife, two daughters, unidentified public officials, and private persons as accused.

The High Court rejected all claims, stating the petition lacked merit, and allowed the investigation and ongoing proceedings to continue.