The Supreme Court on Monday refused to grant relief to former Bihar Chief Minister and Union Railways Minister Lalu Prasad Yadav in his plea to quash proceedings in the alleged land-for-jobs scam..A Bench of Justices MM Sundresh and N Kotiswar Singh declined to pass any order in the matter but permitted Yadav to raise his legal objections during the trial. Additionally, it dispensed with Yadav’s personal appearance before the trial court.It then disposed off the appeal filed by Yadav against an order of the Delhi High Court..The case concerns allegations by the CBI that during his tenure as Union Railway Minister between 2004 and 2009, Yadav facilitated appointments to Group D posts in the Railways in exchange for land parcels transferred to his family at nominal prices.According to the agency, several job seekers or their relatives allegedly sold or gifted land in Patna and other locations to Yadav’s family members and associated entities, without any public recruitment process, as part of a quid pro quo arrangement.The Yadav family has denied the allegations, stating that they are politically motivated..The Delhi High Court on March 24 dismissed Yadav’s plea to quash the case, holding that Section 17A applied only prospectively and, therefore, does not cover the alleged acts between 2004 and 2009.This led to Yadav's appeal before the Supreme Court.Appearing for the prosecution, Additional Solicitor General (ASG) SV Raju argued that the protection under Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act (PC Act) was not available to Yadav. Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, introduced in 2018, requires prior approval from the government before investigating a public servant for decisions taken in the discharge of official duties.He submitted that the provision applies only when a public servant is being investigated for decisions taken in an official capacity where prior approval is required. In this case, Raju said, Yadav was not the competent authority for making Railways appointments.“Wherever 17A applies we have taken permission. 197 will not apply because it’s totally different. Only issue is 17A. This is not a case where even notice can be issue my lords. Look at his role...The petitioner was serving as the Railway Minister and was not the authority empowered to make or approve appointments for Group D substitute of Railways as a process of recruitment was handled by the competent railway functionaries.”“So prior approval is not required?” questioned the Bench.“So there's no question of 17A sanction we have taken for about 30 officers. Why would we not take for him? Because it's not required,” responded ASG Raju..The Court, however, was not convinced by a rigid interpretation of formal authority and pointed out that influence could still flow from the office held. It observed, “Decision can be formal or informal but if you say he is at the apex of the entire Ministry, your own case is because he was holding the post he has influence.”.On the other side, Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for Yadav, argued that the prosecution was shifting its stand. He pointed out that the Delhi High Court had not rejected Yadav’s plea on the ground now being argued, but had instead held that Section 17A applies only prospectively.“Completely wrong what my learned friend is saying. This is not the ground on which High Court has rejected. Court had held 17A of the Act is prospective in operation,” argued Sibal..Sibal further contended that even the prosecution’s own case showed that Yadav acted in his official capacity, as the accusation is that he influenced appointments while serving as Railway Minister. He argued, “They say that ministers rang him up asking that a job be given. This is the case. How is this not part of his official duties? He is not acting as a stranger or a private part...He is influencing the process as part of his official duty.".In its order, the Court did not conclusively decide the legal questions raised“After hearing senior counsel for the parties, the issue pertaining to whether the application of the provision is prospective or retrospective is left open. Liberty is granted to the petitioner to raise the issue at the time of trial,” the Court said while disposing off the appeal..[Read Live Coverage]
