Land-For-Jobs Case: SC Declines To Quash CBI Case Against Lalu Yadav
The top court expressed its disinclination to intervene at this stage and granted liberty to Yadav to raise the issue of prior sanction during trial.
By Sumit Saxena
Published : April 13, 2026 at 1:41 PM IST
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Monday refused to entertain a plea by Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD) leader Lalu Prasad Yadav seeking to quash the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) case in the alleged land-for-jobs case, stating that objections regarding sanction can be raised before the trial court. The matter came up before a bench comprising Justices MM Sundresh and N Kotiswar Singh.
The bench expressed its disinclination to intervene at this stage and granted liberty to Yadav to raise the issue of prior sanction during trial. The bench noted that the issues raised before it are the scope and applicability of Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, and the other is the prospective application and operation of the same provision.
“Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances, the appearance of the petitioner is dispensed with…. Liberty is also given to the petitioner to raise the legal issue at the time of the trial,” said the bench, in its order. The apex court made it clear that the pendency of such legal questions cannot stall the progress of the trial.
Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, representing Yadav, contended before the bench that the absence of prior sanction vitiated the investigation itself. Sibal submitted that the final charge sheet was filed and cognisance under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act was taken in February, 2025, after which the issue regarding Section 17A was immediately raised.
It was argued that the allegations of influencing appointments in the railways were basically linked to Yadav’s official functions as railway minister, and it attracted the protection under Section 17A. Sibal questioned how the objection could have been raised before the filing of the final charge sheet.
Additional Solicitor General SV Raju, opposing Yadav’s plea, argued that quashing cannot be done at this stage and stressed that the petition was filed belatedly, and the investigation is already over. Sibal pointed out that the high court had held Section 17A to be prospective in operation and therefore inapplicable to the alleged offences, which are claimed to have occurred between 2004 and 2009.
Raju argued that Section 17A does not apply in Yadav’s case, as he was neither the decision-making authority nor the recommending authority in connection with the alleged transactions. “Today, the investigation is over. Cognisance has been taken, raising this ground after the court has taken cognisance”, said Raju.
Sibal said as Union Minister of Railways, he entered into a criminal conspiracy, and this is their case, paragraph after paragraph in the chargesheet. The bench observed that the CBI is saying that Section 17A will not be attracted, and another provision will be attracted.
Sibal asked which other provision, stating there is no other provision. “The other provision is 19, which is at the time of trial. This is time of investigation. This is the whole problem, 19 is at the time of trial. This is at the stage of investigation. You can’t investigate a matter till you get a sanction. Once you get a sanction, then the question of trial comes. We are not concerned with that. That is the difference”, said Sibal, stressing that this matter must be decided.
After hearing submissions, the bench observed that questions regarding whether influence was exercised formally or informally could arise during trial, and indicated that such issues would be better adjudicated at that stage. "Other matters are pending on the same issue, and we don't get any relief. This is not fair," Sibal said.
Earlier, the Delhi High Court declined to entertain Yadav’s plea to quash the case, holding that Section 17A, introduced in 2018, does not apply retrospectively to alleged offences committed between 2004 and 2009.
The high court had also ruled that the protection under Section 17A would not apply since the alleged acts were not linked to any official recommendation or decision taken by Yadav in the discharge of his duties.
Background
Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act requires prior approval before initiating a probe into decisions taken by a public servant in the discharge of official duties.
The CBI case relates to alleged irregular appointments in the railways during Yadav’s tenure as Union Railway Minister between 2004 and 2009. According to the agency, Group-D jobs were granted in exchange for land parcels transferred to Yadav’s family members or associates. The agency registered the case in May 2022 against Yadav and several others, including members of his family.
Read More
