Sibal-ASG Raju Heated Exchange in Lalu Yadav's Land-for-Jobs Case | Quick Digest
A heated exchange occurred between Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal and Additional Solicitor General S.V. Raju in the Delhi High Court during a hearing on Lalu Prasad Yadav's plea to quash the FIR in the land-for-jobs case. The High Court has reserved its order on the matter.
Heated exchange between Kapil Sibal and ASG S.V. Raju in Delhi High Court.
Incident occurred during hearing of Lalu Yadav's 'land-for-jobs' scam case.
Sibal represents Lalu Yadav, ASG Raju represents CBI.
Delhi High Court reserved order on Yadav's plea to quash FIR.
Case alleges corruption during Lalu Yadav's tenure as Railway Minister.
Yadav's plea challenges FIR, citing lack of mandatory sanction.
The Delhi High Court recently witnessed a heated exchange between Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal and Additional Solicitor General (ASG) S.V. Raju during the hearing of a petition filed by former Union Railway Minister Lalu Prasad Yadav. Yadav's plea seeks to quash the FIR registered by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) in the alleged 'land-for-jobs' scam.
During the arguments on Monday, January 19, 2026, Kapil Sibal, representing Lalu Prasad Yadav, argued that the FIR and subsequent proceedings were flawed due to procedural irregularities and a lack of substantive evidence, emphasizing the necessity of prior sanction under the Prevention of Corruption Act, given that Yadav acted in his official capacity. ASG S.V. Raju, appearing for the CBI, opposed this, accusing Sibal of raising new points and misrepresenting the law, which led to a sharp retort from Sibal, including the statement, 'You are not the judge.'
Following the submissions from both sides before Justice Ravinder Dudeja, the Delhi High Court reserved its order on Yadav's petition. The 'land-for-jobs' case alleges that during Yadav's tenure as Railway Minister between 2004 and 2009, several individuals were appointed to Group D positions in the Indian Railways in exchange for land parcels transferred to his family members at undervalued rates. The CBI had registered the case in 2022 and subsequently filed multiple chargesheets. Yadav's petition challenges these actions, also contending that the case is politically motivated and lacks prima facie material for prosecution. The court has allowed both sides to submit written arguments. The incident and the court's decision have garnered significant attention, corroborating the Bar and Bench report.
Read the full story on Quick Digest