E-Paper
Supreme Court refuses to defer Lalu Prasad Yadav’s trial in land-for-jobs case
On July 18, the Supreme Court refused to stay the trial in the land-for-jobs case in a Delhi court even as it exempted Yadav from appearing before it
The Supreme Court on Wednesday refused to defer Rashtriya Janata Dal chief Lalu Prasad Yadav’s trial in the land-for-jobs case. It said his petition before the Delhi high court challenging the summons against him will not become “infructuous” if the trial court frames charges against him.
On July 18, the Supreme Court refused to stay the trial in a Delhi court even as it exempted him from appearing before it. In his fresh plea heard on Wednesday, Yadav sought deferment of trial until August 12, when the high court will examine his petition challenging the summons issued to him in the case the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) registered against him in 2022.
Land was allegedly gifted or transferred to Yadav’s family members and associates for appointments made during his tenure as the railway minister from 2004 to 2009.
Yadav argued the CBI’s first information report (FIR) is not maintainable as it was filed without the Central government’s sanction under the Prevention of Corruption Act, which shields public servants from unnecessary prosecution for acts in an official capacity.
On May 29, the high court issued notice on Yadav’s petition to the CBI and posted the matter for hearing on August 12. It refused to stay the trial. The Supreme Court upheld the refusal on July 18. Yadav then requested the high court to advance the hearing of his petition or defer the trial, which is at the stage of framing of charges.
A bench of justices MM Sundresh and N Kotiswar Singh refused to interfere when the matter came up before them a second time on Wednesday.
Advocate Mudit Gupta, appearing for Yadav, requested the court to adjourn the case as senior advocate Kapil Sibal was busy.
Additional solicitor general SV Raju, who appeared for CBI, called Yadav’s petition an abuse of law. He alleged attempts were being made to impede the trial. “Heavy cost should be imposed on filing of such a petition,” Raju said. The bench declined the request.
