New Delhi [India], July 25 : The Delhi High Court has declined a request by former Bihar Chief Minister and RJD chief Lalu Prasad Yadav for an early hearing on his petition seeking to quash the FIR registered by the CBI in the land-for-jobs case.
Justice Ravinder Dhingra observed on Thursday that the matter was already listed for hearing on August 12, 2025, and remarked that the date was "not very far." Yadav had approached the court urging that the matter be heard earlier, pointing out that the trial court had scheduled arguments on framing of charges between July 26 and August 2. His application sought to prevent the trial from proceeding before the High Court could decide on the FIR quashing plea.
It was argued that the trial proceedings would render the High Court plea meaningless if allowed to progress. However, the judge noted that an earlier application seeking to stay the trial proceedings had already been dismissed by the High Court on May 29, and the Supreme Court too had refused to interfere with that decision in its order dated July 18.
The High Court had earlier issued notice to the CBI on Yadav's main petition challenging the FIR and the three chargesheets filed in 2022, 2023, and 2024. The agency has been accused of registering the case with considerable delay -- nearly 14 years after the alleged offence -- despite having earlier closed its inquiry into the same matter.
The case pertains to appointments allegedly made to Group D posts in the West Central Railway's Jabalpur zone during Lalu Prasad Yadav's tenure as Union Railway Minister from 2004 to 2009. According to the CBI, appointments were made in exchange for land parcels transferred to the names of his family members or associates.
Yadav, in his plea, termed the revival of the investigation after a long gap as an "abuse of the process of law." He also claimed the proceedings lacked proper sanction under Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, making the investigation void from the outset.
Calling the move "politically motivated" and an example of "regime revenge," the petition argues that the reopening of the probe without mandatory approval rendered the entire process illegal and a violation of his fundamental rights. The High Court will take up the matter for hearing on August 12.