Supreme Court declines Lalu Prasad Yadav's plea to stay Land-for-Jobs trial
Yadav had approached the Apex Court challenging the Delhi High Courts earlier order that rejected his plea to halt the trial. He argued that the First Information Report (FIR) against him was filed without the necessary sanction under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
However, a bench comprising Justices M. M. Sundresh and N. Kotiswar Singh observed that the issue did not warrant Supreme Court intervention and should instead be addressed by the Delhi High Court. The High Court had previously permitted Yadav to raise his objections before the trial court but refused to stall the proceedings.
With the top court stepping aside, the trial in the land-for-jobs case will proceed as scheduled in the lower court.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
30 minutes ago
- Business Standard
Cricket stadium needed to conduct trial involving Senthil Balaji: SC
The Supreme Court on Wednesday pulled up the Tamil Nadu government for implicating more than 2000 persons in cash-for-jobs scam cases involving ex-minister V Senthil Balaji, and sought the details of all the accused and witnesses. Terming the trial in cases involving ex-minister as "rudderless ship", a bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi said that had there not been judicial intervention, the "reluctant state" wanted to give a decent burial of cases involving ex-minister Senthil Balaji in the cash-for-job scam case. "With over 2000 accused and 500 witnesses it will be the most populated trial of India. A small courtroom of the trial court will not suffice and a cricket stadium will be needed to even mark the presence of the accused. Several Artificial Intelligence-generated accused will pop up to mark their presence," the bench told senior advocate Gopal Sankaranaryanan, appearing for Y Balaji, representing victims of the scam and opposing the decision for clubbing of the cases. On a prayer for appointment of a special public prosecutor, the bench told senior advocate Abhishek Singhvi, appearing for the state, that when a powerful minister and affluent people are accused in a case, there is a perception that a lone public prosecutor will not be able to do justice. On Tuesday, the top court expressed displeasure over the Tamil Nadu government "attempting to delay" the trial in cases involving Balaji by implicating more than 2,000 people as accused in the alleged cash-for-jobs scam and described the attempt as a "complete fraud on the judicial system". Balaji resigned from the M K Stalin-led state Cabinet on April 27 after being pulled up by the top court. The apex court asked Balaji on April 23 to make a choice "between post and freedom" as it warned him that his bail would be cancelled if he did not step down as a minister. It took exception to the fact that Balaji was reinstated as a minister in the southern state, days after he obtained bail in a money-laundering case related to the alleged cash-for-jobs scam. On September 26, 2024, the top court granted bail to Balaji in a case probed by the Enforcement Directorate. With Balaji spending more than 15 months in jail, the top court had observed that there was no possibility that the trial would be concluded in the near future. Balaji (48) was sworn-in as a minister on September 29 last year, and assigned the same key portfolios of electricity, non-conventional energy development, prohibition and excise that he had held previously in the Stalin Cabinet.
Hindustan Times
30 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
Supreme Court refuses to defer Lalu Prasad Yadav's trial in land-for-jobs case
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. Rashtriya Janata Dal chief Lalu Prasad Yadav. (PTI) 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.
New Indian Express
an hour ago
- New Indian Express
SC issues contempt notices over defamatory plea against Telangana HC judge
NEW DELHI: Expressing strong displeasure over scurrilous allegations made by a petitioner, Peddi Raju, against Telangana High Court judge Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya, the Supreme Court on Tuesday issued contempt notices to him and his lawyers. A bench comprising Chief Justice of India (CJI) B R Gavai and Justice Vinod Chandran stated that no litigant would be allowed to make baseless accusations against a judge. 'We can't permit judges to be put in a box and allow any litigant to make such allegations. Here, we were trying to protect lawyers,' the CJI observed while criticising the petitioner for his remarks. SC: Lawyers too equally liable for misconduct The court directed Raju to file an apology. 'We will see if the apology is genuine or not. When we expressed displeasure at the language, liberty was sought to withdraw [the plea]. We dismissed the request,' the bench said. The court also clarified that the lawyers representing Raju would be equally liable for the misconduct, given their involvement in the filing of the petition. The allegations were made in a plea seeking transfer of a case in which Telangana Chief Minister A Revanth Reddy was granted relief out of the Telangana High Court. The High Court had quashed criminal charges against Reddy under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The Supreme Court said it would consider a lenient approach only if the apologies submitted by both the litigant and his lawyers appeared sincere.
