'You are not the judge': Tempers flare in Delhi High Court during Lalu Yadav hearing

Delhi High Court

• Delhi HC reserved order on Lalu Yadav's plea to quash FIR in land-for-jobs case
• Lalu claims CBI probe missed required approval under Corruption Prevention Act
• Courtroom saw heated exchanges between lawyers Sibal and Raju during the hearing

Did our AI summary help?

The Delhi High Court on Monday reserved its order on a plea filed by Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD) chief and former Union railway minister Lalu Prasad Yadav seeking to scrap the FIR and subsequent proceedings in the alleged land-for-jobs case registered by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI).

The matter was heard by Justice Ravinder Dudeja, before whom senior advocate Kapil Sibal appeared for Yadav, while Additional Solicitor General SV Raju represented the investigating agency.

After detailed oral arguments from both sides, the court allowed the parties to place brief written submissions on record.

Yadav has approached the high court seeking quashing of the FIR lodged in 2022, the three charge sheets filed in 2022, 2023, and 2024, and the related orders by which cognisance was taken.

A central plank of his challenge is that the entire exercise, from enquiry to investigation, was initiated without the mandatory prior approval required under Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

According to the petition, the alleged acts pertain to decisions taken when Yadav was serving as the railway minister, and therefore any prosecution for acts done in the course of official duties could not proceed without sanction.

Sibal stressed that even the CBI’s own case proceeds on the footing that Yadav acted in an official capacity, making the absence of sanction fatal to the proceedings.

He also pointed out that earlier enquiries had culminated in closure reports, and the FIR was registered nearly 14 years later. The petition claims that reopening the matter while concealing earlier investigations amounted to abuse of process and violated Yadav’s right to a fair investigation.

It further asserts that any enquiry or investigation initiated without approval under Section 17A would be void from the outset, describing the present action as legally non est.

Opposing the plea, ASG Raju argued that the protection under Section 17A was not attracted.

He maintained that the authority to make or recommend appointments rested with railway general managers, not the minister, and therefore the alleged conduct could not be described as acts done in discharge of official functions or duties requiring prior sanction. On this basis, he submitted that the proceedings against Yadav were maintainable.

The land-for-jobs case relates to alleged Group D appointments in the West Central Zone of the Railways, based in Jabalpur, during Yadav’s tenure between 2004 and 2009.

The CBI has alleged that appointments were facilitated in exchange for land parcels being transferred or gifted to Yadav’s family members or associates. The case names Yadav, his wife, two daughters, unidentified public officials and private individuals.

Sharp exchange between senior advocate Sibal and ASG Raju

The hearing, however, was marked by a tense verbal exchange between the two senior lawyers, drawing the court’s attention away from legal submissions to courtroom decorum.

During arguments on the issue of sanction, Sibal remarked, “You have to get sanction, how are they arguing against their own case? Closure report was filed by CBI itself.” This prompted a strong response from ASG Raju, who accused Sibal of raising new points and misrepresenting the law.

“Sibal has argued on a new point. I have to point out the correct law. Mr Sibal makes misleading arguments and doesn't let me argue,” Raju told the court.

The accusation drew an immediate and forceful rebuttal from Sibal, who took exception to the suggestion that he had misled the bench. “You don't even have the honesty to say that I have not misled any court. Never in my life. Don't dare say that. You may be Additional Solicitor General of India, you are not the judge,” he said.

Raju stood his ground, responding, “Yes, you have misled the Court, it is my submission and I will point out how you have misled and you don't allow me to point out.”

As tempers rose further, Sibal questioned Raju’s conduct and professional approach, remarking, “You are the Additional Solicitor General, not a petty lawyer. You want to reduce yourself to that status, you are welcome. We don't tolerate this. I don't know if you have been in this Court enough to know who I am. You have no idea.”

Seeking to strike a calmer note, Raju replied, “I have a lot of respect for you, but in such matters I have to point out.”

At this point, Justice Ravinder Dudeja stepped in to defuse the situation, observing, “Let us cool down the atmosphere.” Soon after the intervention, the court concluded the hearing, reserved its verdict, and granted liberty to both sides to file concise written submissions.