A Delhi court on Friday paved the way for trial in the high-profile land-for-jobs scandal, ordering the framing of charges against Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD) chief Lalu Prasad and 40 other accused. The court observed the existence of a deep-rooted criminal conspiracy, allegedly mentored by the former railway minister.
Court Cites "Criminal Enterprise" and "Personal Fiefdom"
Judge Vishal Gogne of the Rouse Avenue court, while rejecting pleas seeking discharge, made strong observations about the nature of the alleged offences. The court noted that Lalu Prasad, along with accused family members, appeared "to be operating as a criminal enterprise aimed at usurping private land by bartering away government posts."
In a significant remark, the court stated that the Ministry of Railways was allegedly being "lorded over as a personal fiefdom" during the period in question. It held that public employment was used as a bargaining chip by Lalu to receive immovable properties.
The Mechanics of the Alleged Scam
The case pertains to Lalu Prasad's tenure as the Union Railway Minister from 2004 to 2009. According to the chargesheet filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), which was noted by the court, railway jobs were allegedly given away in exchange for land parcels from candidates.
The court recorded that these land parcels were transferred either in the name of Lalu's wife, Rabri Devi, or other family members and close associates. The judge observed there existed "an overarching criminal conspiracy, mentored by Lalu Prasad."
The court also noted that several accused general managers of Indian Railways had made appointments "by abuse of their discretion," particularly by engaging Group D substitutes in violation of established norms.
Discharge for Some, Trial for Others
While ordering the framing of charges against Lalu Prasad and the majority of the accused, the court held that arguments for discharge were "completely unwarranted" given the evidence.
However, in a partial relief, the court decided to discharge the accused chief personnel officers. It held that they "neither possessed the discretion to make such appointments nor were they under the influence" of the ministry, distinguishing their role from that of the general managers.
This order formally opens the legal proceedings for a full trial, where the accused will have the opportunity to present their defence against the charges framed by the court.
