Latest news with #Sibal
Time of India
2 days ago
- Politics
- Time of India
IRCTC case: Lalu moves Delhi HC to quash CBI FIR
New Delhi: Former railway minister on Thursday sought in the the quashing of the FIR filed by the CBI in the land-for-jobs case. Senior advocate Kapil Sibal appeared in the court on behalf of the (RJD) supremo and argued that the inquiry and the FIR as well as the investigation and the subsequent chargesheets in the matter could not be legally sustained as the CBI had failed to obtain prior sanction under section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now The sanction under section 17A is a mandatory requirement of law to launch any enquiry or investigation against a public servant, he said. Submitting that the trial court is slated to hear arguments on charge on June 2, Sibal urged the court to pass directions to defer the same. He said even after an initial closure report, the FIR was registered by the CBI in 2022 for offences allegedly committed from 2004 to 2009 and the trial court took cognisance and "merged" three chargesheets on February 25. "What will I do if the charge is framed? Please wait for a month. We will argue the matter. For 14 years, you have waited (to register the FIR). This is only mala fide," Sibal submitted. Justice Ravinder Dudeja heard Sibal as well as senior advocate D P Singh, who appeared in the court for the CBI, and said he would pass an order. Singh opposed the petition and said the necessary sanction under section 19 of the anti-graft law has been obtained. Section 19 pertains to the requirement of a prior sanction from the competent authority for a court to take cognisance of an offence. Sibal, however, said the sanction under section 17A "preceded" any sanction under section 19. Singh said the issue of any mandatory compliance with section 17A is pending before a larger bench of the Supreme Court on account of differing views and in any event, a stay on the proceedings could not be ordered for any irregularity. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now "It is a case where public servants were told by the cronies for the minister to do these selections and land was given in lieu. Therefore, it is called the land-for-jobs case. The minister was misusing his position," Singh said. During the hearing, the court suggested that the legal question of requisite prior sanction could also be raised by the petitioner before the trial court. Sibal said the trial court has already taken cognisance in the matter and is unlikely to "change its mind". The case is related to Group-D appointments made in the West Central Zone of the Indian Railway based in Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh, during Prasad's tenure as the rail minister between 2004 and 2009 allegedly in return for land parcels gifted or transferred by the recruits in the name of the RJD supremo's family members or associates, officials said. The case was registered on May 18, 2022 against Prasad and others, including his wife, two daughters, unidentified public officials and private persons.
The Hindu
2 days ago
- Politics
- The Hindu
Land-for-jobs 'scam': Former Rail Minister Lalu Prasad moves Delhi HC to quash CBI FIR
Former rail minister Lalu Prasad on Thursday (May 29, 2025) sought in the Delhi High Court the quashing of the FIR filed by the CBI in the land-for-jobs "scam". Senior advocate Kapil Sibal appeared in the court on behalf of the Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD) supremo and argued that the enquiry and the FIR as well as the investigation and the subsequent chargesheets in the matter could not be legally sustained as the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) had failed to obtain prior sanction under section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The sanction under section 17A is a mandatory requirement of law to launch any enquiry or investigation against a public servant, he said. Submitting that the trial court is slated to hear arguments on charge on June 2, Mr. Sibal urged the court to pass directions to defer the same. He said even after an initial closure report, the FIR was registered by the CBI in 2022 for offences allegedly committed from 2004 to 2009 and the trial court took cognisance and "merged" three chargesheets on February 25. "What will I do if the charge is framed? Please wait for a month. We will argue the matter. For 14 years, you have waited [to register the FIR]. This is only mala fide," Mr. Sibal submitted. Justice Ravinder Dudeja heard Mr. Sibal as well as senior advocate D P Singh, who appeared in the court for the CBI, and said he would pass an order. Mr. Singh opposed the petition and said the necessary sanction under section 19 of the anti-graft law has been obtained. Section 19 pertains to the requirement of a prior sanction from the competent authority for a court to take cognisance of an offence. Mr. Sibal, however, said the sanction under section 17A "preceded" any sanction under section 19. Mr. Singh said the issue of any mandatory compliance with section 17A is pending before a larger bench of the Supreme Court on account of differing views and in any event, a stay on the proceedings could not be ordered for any irregularity. "It is a case where public servants were told by the cronies for the minister to do these selections and land was given in lieu. Therefore, it is called the land-for-jobs case. The minister was misusing his position," Mr. Singh said. During the hearing, the court suggested that the legal question of requisite prior sanction could also be raised by the petitioner before the trial court. Mr. Sibal said the trial court has already taken cognisance in the matter and is unlikely to "change its mind". The case is related to Group-D appointments made in the West Central Zone of the Indian Railway based in Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh, during Mr. Prasad's tenure as the rail minister between 2004 and 2009 allegedly in return for land parcels gifted or transferred by the recruits in the name of the RJD supremo's family members or associates, officials said. The case was registered on May 18, 2022 against Mr. Prasad and others, including his wife, two daughters, unidentified public officials and private persons. In his petition in the high court, Mr. Prasad has sought the quashing of the FIR as well as the three chargesheets filed in 2022, 2023 and 2024 and the consequential orders of cognisance. The plea has said the FIR was lodged in 2022, that is, almost after a delay of 14 years, despite the CBI's initial enquiries and investigations being closed after the filing of the closure report before the competent court. "Initiation of the fresh investigation in concealment of the previous investigations and its closure reports is nothing but an abuse of the process of law. The petitioner is being made to suffer through an illegal, motivated investigation, in clear violation of his fundamental right to a fair investigation. Both the initiation of the present enquiries and investigations are non est as both have been initiated without a mandatory approval under section l7A of the PC Act," the petition says. "Without such approval, any enquiry/inquiry/investigation undertaken would be void ab initio. Section 17A of the PC Act provides a filter from vexatious litigation. The present scenario of regime revenge and political vendetta is exactly what section 17A seeks to restrict by protecting innocent persons. The initiation of investigation without such approval vitiates the entire proceedings since inception and the same is a jurisdictional error," it says.
NDTV
2 days ago
- Politics
- NDTV
Lalu Prasad Approaches Court, Seeks Quashing Of Case In Land-For-Jobs Scam
New Delhi: Former rail minister Lalu Prasad on Thursday sought in the Delhi High Court the quashing of the FIR filed by the CBI in the land-for-jobs "scam". Senior advocate Kapil Sibal appeared in the court on behalf of the Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD) supremo and argued that the enquiry and the FIR as well as the investigation and the subsequent chargesheets in the matter could not be legally sustained as the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) had failed to obtain prior sanction under section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The sanction under section 17A is a mandatory requirement of law to launch any enquiry or investigation against a public servant, he said. Submitting that the trial court is slated to hear arguments on charge on June 2, Sibal urged the court to pass directions to defer the same. He said even after an initial closure report, the FIR was registered by the CBI in 2022 for offences allegedly committed from 2004 to 2009 and the trial court took cognisance and "merged" three chargesheets on February 25. "What will I do if the charge is framed? Please wait for a month. We will argue the matter. For 14 years, you have waited (to register the FIR). This is only mala fide," Sibal submitted. Justice Ravinder Dudeja heard Sibal as well as senior advocate D P Singh, who appeared in the court for the CBI, and said he would pass an order. Singh opposed the petition and said the necessary sanction under section 19 of the anti-graft law has been obtained. Section 19 pertains to the requirement of a prior sanction from the competent authority for a court to take cognisance of an offence. Sibal, however, said the sanction under section 17A "preceded" any sanction under section 19. Singh said the issue of any mandatory compliance with section 17A is pending before a larger bench of the Supreme Court on account of differing views and in any event, a stay on the proceedings could not be ordered for any irregularity. "It is a case where public servants were told by the cronies for the minister to do these selections and land was given in lieu. Therefore, it is called the land-for-jobs case. The minister was misusing his position," Singh said. During the hearing, the court suggested that the legal question of requisite prior sanction could also be raised by the petitioner before the trial court. Sibal said the trial court has already taken cognisance in the matter and is unlikely to "change its mind". The case is related to Group-D appointments made in the West Central Zone of the Indian Railway based in Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh, during Prasad's tenure as the rail minister between 2004 and 2009 allegedly in return for land parcels gifted or transferred by the recruits in the name of the RJD supremo's family members or associates, officials said. The case was registered on May 18, 2022 against Prasad and others, including his wife, two daughters, unidentified public officials and private persons. In his petition in the high court, Prasad has sought the quashing of the FIR as well as the three chargesheets filed in 2022, 2023 and 2024 and the consequential orders of cognisance. The plea has said the FIR was lodged in 2022, that is, almost after a delay of 14 years, despite the CBI's initial enquiries and investigations being closed after the filing of the closure report before the competent court. "Initiation of the fresh investigation in concealment of the previous investigations and its closure reports is nothing but an abuse of the process of law. The petitioner is being made to suffer through an illegal, motivated investigation, in clear violation of his fundamental right to a fair investigation. Both the initiation of the present enquiries and investigations are non est as both have been initiated without a mandatory approval under section l7A of the PC Act," the petition says. "Without such approval, any enquiry/inquiry/investigation undertaken would be void ab initio. Section 17A of the PC Act provides a filter from vexatious litigation. The present scenario of regime revenge and political vendetta is exactly what section 17A seeks to restrict by protecting innocent persons. The initiation of investigation without such approval vitiates the entire proceedings since inception and the same is a jurisdictional error," it says.
Time of India
2 days ago
- Politics
- Time of India
Land-for-jobs 'scam': Former rail minister Lalu Prasad moves Delhi HC to quash CBI FIR
ADVERTISEMENT ADVERTISEMENT ADVERTISEMENT Former rail minister Lalu Prasad on Thursday sought in the Delhi High Court the quashing of the FIR filed by the CBI in the land-for-jobs "scam".Senior advocate Kapil Sibal appeared in the court on behalf of the Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD) supremo and argued that the enquiry and the FIR as well as the investigation and the subsequent chargesheets in the matter could not be legally sustained as the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) had failed to obtain prior sanction under section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act The sanction under section 17A is a mandatory requirement of law to launch any enquiry or investigation against a public servant, he that the trial court is slated to hear arguments on charge on June 2, Sibal urged the court to pass directions to defer the said even after an initial closure report, the FIR was registered by the CBI in 2022 for offences allegedly committed from 2004 to 2009 and the trial court took cognisance and "merged" three chargesheets on February 25."What will I do if the charge is framed? Please wait for a month. We will argue the matter. For 14 years, you have waited (to register the FIR). This is only mala fide," Sibal Ravinder Dudeja heard Sibal as well as senior advocate D P Singh, who appeared in the court for the CBI, and said he would pass an opposed the petition and said the necessary sanction under section 19 of the anti-graft law has been 19 pertains to the requirement of a prior sanction from the competent authority for a court to take cognisance of an however, said the sanction under section 17A "preceded" any sanction under section said the issue of any mandatory compliance with section 17A is pending before a larger bench of the Supreme Court on account of differing views and in any event, a stay on the proceedings could not be ordered for any irregularity."It is a case where public servants were told by the cronies for the minister to do these selections and land was given in lieu. Therefore, it is called the land-for-jobs case. The minister was misusing his position," Singh the hearing, the court suggested that the legal question of requisite prior sanction could also be raised by the petitioner before the trial said the trial court has already taken cognisance in the matter and is unlikely to "change its mind".The case is related to Group-D appointments made in the West Central Zone of the Indian Railway based in Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh, during Prasad's tenure as the rail minister between 2004 and 2009 allegedly in return for land parcels gifted or transferred by the recruits in the name of the RJD supremo's family members or associates, officials case was registered on May 18, 2022 against Prasad and others, including his wife, two daughters, unidentified public officials and private his petition in the high court, Prasad has sought the quashing of the FIR as well as the three chargesheets filed in 2022, 2023 and 2024 and the consequential orders of plea has said the FIR was lodged in 2022, that is, almost after a delay of 14 years, despite the CBI's initial enquiries and investigations being closed after the filing of the closure report before the competent court."Initiation of the fresh investigation in concealment of the previous investigations and its closure reports is nothing but an abuse of the process of law. The petitioner is being made to suffer through an illegal, motivated investigation, in clear violation of his fundamental right to a fair investigation. Both the initiation of the present enquiries and investigations are non est as both have been initiated without a mandatory approval under section l7A of the PC Act," the petition says."Without such approval, any enquiry/inquiry/investigation undertaken would be void ab initio. Section 17A of the PC Act provides a filter from vexatious litigation. The present scenario of regime revenge and political vendetta is exactly what section 17A seeks to restrict by protecting innocent persons. The initiation of investigation without such approval vitiates the entire proceedings since inception and the same is a jurisdictional error," it says.
Scroll.in
2 days ago
- Politics
- Scroll.in
YouTuber Mohak Mangal agrees to remove ‘objectionable' parts of video about ANI
YouTuber Mohak Mangal on Thursday told the Delhi High Court that he will remove the allegedly objectionable portions in his video about Asian News International, Bar and Bench reported. His submission came after Justice Amit Bansal directed Mangal to take down the portions, observing that they contained defamatory language about the news agency. The court was hearing a defamation suit filed by ANI against Mangal for posting the allegedly defamatory video accusing the news agency of extortion and blackmail. The suit also listed comedian Kunal Kamra and AltNews co-founder Mohammed Zubair, among others, as defendants for sharing Mangal's video on social media. In his order, Bansal said that Mangal had agreed to put the video 'in private mode and make the necessary amendments in the video so as to remove objectionable portions as indicated in the hearing'. It added that the video may be uploaded again after the allegedly objectionable content was removed. Earlier on Thursday, the court had said that the YouTuber should have put out his message in a more civilised manner and asked Mangal's counsel to seek instructions on taking down the video. In his video titled ' Dear ANI ' uploaded on Sunday, Mangal accused ANI of extortion and blackmail after the news agency initiated copyright strikes against his YouTube channel for using its footage in his material. A copyright strike on YouTube takes place when the copyright owner claims that a video has used their content without permission. YouTube reviews the claim and, if valid, stops the creator from monetising it or removes the video. It also gives the uploader of the video a strike. Receiving three strikes can lead to a channel's termination. Mangal contended in his video that he had used the footage under the 'fair use' principle, which is legal doctrine that is generally understood to allow limited use of copyrighted material without permission from the owner for purposes such as critiques, reviews or teaching. Mangal's video had 5.8 million views as of Thursday. During the hearing on Thursday, advocate Amit Sibal, representing ANI, told the court that there had been unlawful publication of the news agency's copyrighted content on YouTube, according to Bar and Bench. Sibal added: 'I [ANI] offered a license. They could have rejected my offer but to put pressure on me, defamatory material is put by them. This is in retaliation to my offer.' The advocate alleged that Mangal had started a media campaign against ANI that had spiralled into a 'concerted campaign'. This was vilifying and defamatory, he alleged. 'They are calling me thugs, extortionist, gunda [goon], other expletives,' Bar and Bench quoted Sibal as having said. The judge was also told that Mangal was earning money by not only using ANI's videos but also posting the allegedly defamatory material. 'He has 4.2 million subscribers, he is using my content to earn money, they attract eyeballs,' Bar and Bench quoted Sibal as having argued. 'He puts my registered trademark. I have placed transcription of a fake conversation with me, he states in minute letters that it is a recreation.' The advocate also alleged that the social media posts by Kamra and Zubair appeared to be a 'concerted effort' against ANI, adding that their attempt was 'to put pressure' on the news agency. There were also calls to boycott ANI, he added. Advocate Chander Lall, representing Mangal, accused ANI of not following due process. 'If they have a grievance against me, they can't call me and extort money from me that I will block your channel if you don't pay,' Bar and Bench quoted Lall as having said. Advocate Nakul Gandhi, also representing Mangal, said that the YouTuber's channel would be terminated after three strikes and that he would not be able to open a new channel, Live Law reported. In response, Live Law quoted Bansal as saying: 'Your act and your video was premature.' 'Because there was no threat to your channel,' the judge said. 'The onus of them to go to court. There was no occasion to make the disparaging video.' Zubair also agreed to take down his social media posts about the matter, Bar and Bench reported. His counsel noted that the AltNews co-founder had made a civilised comment on the larger matter. However, he was willing to delete his remarks, the counsel added. Kamra had initially agreed to only delete one of his several posts about the matter. His counsel argued that other posts were covered under the right to free speech. The comedian was commenting on a matter of larger public interest, the counsel added. Bansal, however, said that the language was not palatable to the court, according to Bar and Bench. Kamra agreed to delete the posts. ANI's suit In its suit, ANI claimed that the video was an attempt to 'discredit and insult' the news agency and the services it provides under its registered trademarks. Mangal had admitted to using ANI's original copyrighted videos to earn revenue, the news agency was quoted as having claimed in its suit, adding that the YouTuber had published the video filled with defamatory and damaging statements despite this. The suit also alleged that Kamra, Zubair and others who had shared Mangal's video on their social media accounts had 'independently published further false, baseless and malicious statements targeting the plaintiff and its founders'. ANI alleged that the statements were 'devoid of any factual or legal foundation' and were intended to 'malign' the reputation of the news agency in the eyes of the public. The suit sought Rs 2.1 crore as damages. In addition, it also sought a permanent and mandatory injunction against Mangal, including directions to take down the video, stop using ANI's trademarks and refrain from publishing or circulating further 'false, misleading or defamatory' content against the news agency. It also sought similar restraining orders against Kamra, Zubair and others, preventing them from making or sharing defamatory and false statements about ANI.
