SC refuses to intervene in appeal by Lalu Prasad for stay of trial

: The Supreme Court on Friday (July 18, 2025) refused to intervene in an interim order of the Delhi High Court declining to stay a corruption trial against former Bihar Chief Minister Lalu Prasad in a land-for-jobs case.

However, a Bench of Justices MM Sundresh and N. Kotiswar Singh asked the Delhi High Court to expedite the hearing in the main petition filed by Mr. Yadav to quash the criminal case registered against him by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI).

The Bench also made it clear observations made by the High Court in the interim order would not affect the disposal of the main petition.

The apex court said it did not want to comment on the case against Mr. Yadav on the basis of an appeal filed by him challenging an interim order of the High Court.

The court further dispensed with the presence of Mr. Yadav from the trial proceedings after considering his age and health.

Corruption case pertains to Lalu’s tenure as Railway Minister

Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for Mr. Yadav, said the corruption case was related to Group D appointments made in the West Central Zone of the Indian Railways based in Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh, during Mr. Yadav’s tenure as the Railway Minister between 2004 and 2009, allegedly in return for land parcels gifted or transferred by the recruits in the name of his family or associates.

The case was registered on May 18, 2022, against Mr. Yadav and others, including his wife, two daughters, unidentified public officials and private persons.

Mr. Sibal submitted that the FIR was lodged after a 14-year delay despite initial enquiries and investigations had led to the filing of a closure report in the competent court.

He questioned why the CBI had not taken prior sanction before prosecuting Mr. Yadav, whose actions as a Minister was under question.

“The investigation cannot start without a prior sanction under Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The agency had taken sanction for all the government servants, except him [Yadav]... The enthusiasm is telling,” Mr. Sibal said.

Appearing for the CBI, Additional Solicitor General SV Raju countered that sanction was not required as the offence was allegedly committed prior to the 2018 amendment of the Act inserting Section 17A.

Mr. Sibal responded that the FIR however was registered in 2021, post the amendment.

The Bench said it did not want to look into the merits and facts of the case, which may be left to the High Court to consider.