The Delhi High Court issued notice to the Central Bureau of Investigation on a petition filed by Rashtriya Janata Dal leader Lalu Prasad Yadav challenging the order of a special court that had framed charges against him in the alleged “land for jobs” scam. The matter came up before Justice Manoj Jain, who directed the investigating agency to file its response and scheduled a tentative hearing timetable for the case.
The High Court indicated that arguments from both sides would be heard over multiple dates and directed the parties to submit written synopses for consideration. The case arises from an order of a special court which had framed charges against Yadav and several others in connection with allegations that land was obtained from individuals in exchange for employment in the Indian Railways during the period when Yadav served as Union Minister for Railways.
Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for Yadav, argued before the High Court that the charges framed against his client were legally unsustainable. He submitted that the recruitment of employees in the Railways did not fall within the direct control of the Railway Minister. According to the submissions made on behalf of Yadav, the process of recruitment was governed by established circulars and administrative procedures under which General Managers and other officials were responsible for conducting recruitment.
Sibal stated that the allegations relate to the recruitment of Class-D employees in the Railways. He explained that such employees were generally recruited on a temporary basis and later regularised depending on administrative requirements. He argued that the minister had no direct involvement in the recruitment process and therefore could not be held responsible for appointments made during that period.
The counsel further informed the Court that during Yadav’s tenure as Railway Minister between 2004 and 2009, approximately 1500 individuals were recruited as Class-D employees. According to the allegations in the case, the recruitment process was allegedly linked to transactions involving land transfers in favour of members of Yadav’s family. However, Sibal argued that the case sought to create a conspiracy theory without establishing any direct connection between the minister and the recruitment decisions.
He explained that several individuals had been accused in the case, including senior railway officials. According to the submissions made in court, the original number of accused persons in the case was 103, out of which five had died. Of the remaining accused persons, 52 individuals had already been discharged from the case by the trial court. The remaining accused persons, numbering 46, are facing trial.
Among those who continue to face trial are six General Managers of the Railways, along with several individuals described as associates or family members of Yadav. The counsel pointed out that some of the accused persons were linked to land transactions that formed part of the allegations in the case.
The defence argued that the prosecution’s case was based on the claim that land was transferred in exchange for employment in the Railways. According to the prosecution’s allegations, individuals or their family members transferred land to entities linked to Yadav’s family. These transfers were allegedly made in return for securing employment in the Railways.
Sibal submitted before the Court that the alleged conspiracy involved land transactions relating to a total area of approximately two acres. He argued that the prosecution had portrayed these transactions as part of a large-scale conspiracy even though the transactions themselves were limited in scope. The defence also questioned the basis on which such transactions were treated as evidence of corruption or bribery.
Another argument raised before the Court related to the valuation of land involved in the transactions. The defence pointed out that the prosecution had alleged discrepancies between the circle value of certain properties and the price at which they were purchased. According to the prosecution, these discrepancies indicated that the transactions were linked to illegal gratification.
However, the defence argued that differences between the circle value of property and the actual transaction price cannot automatically be treated as evidence of corruption. It was submitted that property transactions often occur at negotiated prices and that such variations are not unusual in real estate transactions.
The Court also questioned whether the prosecution had relied on statements recorded from complainants under the relevant provisions of criminal procedure. In response, the counsel appearing for Yadav stated that no such statements had been recorded from complainants alleging that they had been forced or induced to transfer land in exchange for employment.
During the hearing, the Court sought information about the progress of the trial proceedings before the special court. The counsel representing the investigating agency informed the Court that the case involves more than one hundred witnesses. It was also indicated that only one witness had been examined so far during the trial proceedings.
The Court noted the stage of the trial and made observations regarding the need to proceed with the examination of witnesses. At one point during the hearing, the Bench orally remarked that the proceedings involving approvers should not be stalled unnecessarily. The Court also indicated that the prosecution may proceed with examining other witnesses in the case.
The charges against Yadav were framed by a special court of the Rouse Avenue Courts. While framing the charges, the trial court had observed that there existed an overarching conspiracy involving Yadav and members of his family. According to the findings recorded by the trial court at the stage of framing charges, the allegations suggested that public employment was used as a bargaining tool for obtaining immovable property in the names of family members.
The trial court had also referred to the chargesheet filed by the investigating agency which indicated that close associates of Yadav allegedly facilitated the transactions forming part of the alleged conspiracy. The court had rejected the discharge pleas filed by Yadav and other accused persons, stating that the pleas were not justified at that stage of the proceedings.
According to the prosecution’s case, appointments in the Railways were allegedly made in violation of established recruitment guidelines. The investigating agency claimed that certain individuals were appointed to railway posts and that in return, land was transferred in favour of companies or family members linked to Yadav.
The investigation also alleges that some of the land parcels were transferred to a private company named AK Infosystems Private Limited. According to the chargesheet, this company was later taken over by members of Yadav’s family. The prosecution claims that the land transactions were part of a scheme through which benefits were provided in exchange for government employment.
The High Court’s decision to issue notice to the investigating agency marks the beginning of proceedings on Yadav’s challenge to the order framing charges. The Court will now examine the arguments raised by the defence regarding the legality of the charges and the alleged lack of evidence linking Yadav to the recruitment process.
The matter will proceed with detailed arguments from both sides on the scheduled dates fixed by the Court. The outcome of these proceedings will determine whether the order framing charges against Yadav in the alleged land-for-jobs case will stand or be set aside.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.