Solicitor General S V Raju, representing the CBI, argued before Justice Ravinder Dudeja that the authority to make such decisions or recommendations lay with the general managers, eliminating the requirement for prior sanction under section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act to act against Lalu, as his actions did not fall under “discharge of his official functions or duties”.
“Our position is that in discharging his official duties, he (Lalu) was not obligated to make any recommendation or take any decision. Thus, any recommendation or decision made was outside the scope of his official responsibilities. Such actions could only have been taken by the general managers. The minister had no involvement,” Raju stated.
“Consequently, regarding appointments, the railway minister had no influence over the decision to appoint. This was not related to fulfilling his public duties as a railway minister. Thus, Lalu had no involvement,” he continued.
Senior advocate D P Singh, additional solicitor general representing the CBI, noted that the necessary sanction under section 17A to proceed against the relevant general managers was duly acquired.
Justice Dudeja scheduled further hearings for next week.
The ‘land-for-jobs’ case pertains to Group D appointments made in the West Central Zone of the Indian Railways located in Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh, during Lalu Prasad’s tenure as rail minister from 2004 to 2009, in exchange for land parcels given or transferred by the recruits to the family or associates of the RJD leader, officials revealed.
The case was registered on May 18, 2022, against Lalu Prasad and several others, including his wife, two daughters, unidentified public officials, and private individuals.
In his high court petition, Lalu has requested the quashing of the FIR and the three charge sheets filed in 2022, 2023, and 2024, along with the consequential orders of cognizance.
Senior advocate Kapil Sibal previously argued on behalf of Lalu Prasad, asserting that the inquiry, FIR, and subsequent investigations could not be legally upheld because the investigating agency failed to secure prior sanction under section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
The petition also contended that the FIR was filed in 2022—almost 14 years later—despite the CBI’s prior inquiries and investigations being closed after submitting a closure report to the appropriate court.
“The initiation of this new investigation, while concealing past investigations and their closure reports, constitutes an abuse of legal processes. The Petitioner is enduring an illegal, biased investigation, violating his fundamental right to a fair investigation,” the petition stated.
Both the start of the current inquiries and investigations are deemed non-existent, as they commenced without the essential approval under Section 17A of the PC Act, it argued.
“Without such approval, any inquiry or investigation undertaken is void from the outset. Section 17A of the PC Act serves as a safeguard against frivolous litigation. The current situation, perceived as political revenge and vendetta, is precisely what Section 17A aims to prevent by protecting innocent individuals.
“The commencement of this investigation without the necessary approval invalidates the entire proceedings from the outset, constituting a jurisdictional error,” it concluded.
