New Delhi: The Delhi High Court is scheduled to hear on Monday the petition filed by Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD) leader and former Union Railway Minister Lalu Prasad Yadav challenging a special court’s order that framed charges against him, his wife Rabri Devi, his son Tejashwi Prasad Yadav, and 11 other individuals in the alleged IRCTC scam case.

Lalu Prasad had approached the high court contesting the framing of charges, arguing that the special court’s order was unsustainable and unjust. The matter is listed for hearing before Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma on January 5.

The IRCTC case involves allegations of corruption, criminal conspiracy, and irregularities in land and share transactions relating to hotels under the Railways’ management at Ranchi and Puri. The special court, in its order dated October 13, 2025, had framed charges of cheating, criminal conspiracy, and violations under the Prevention of Corruption (PC) Act against the accused, raising serious concerns about possible abuse of public office.

In its observations, the court noted that the transactions in question “could possibly represent an instance of crony capitalism disguised as private participation in the Railways’ hotels,” highlighting the gravity of the alleged misconduct.

The accused individuals named in the case, apart from Lalu Prasad Yadav, include Pradeep Kumar Goel, Rakesh Saksena, Bhupendra Kumar Agarwal, Rakesh Kumar Gogia, and Vinod Kumar Asthana, who were charged under Section 13 read with Section 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Section 13 addresses criminal misconduct by public servants, while Section 13 and focuses on abuse of official position for personal gain.

Furthermore, the special court directed that charges under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) be framed against Lalu Prasad, Rabri Devi, Tejashwi Yadav, M/s LARA Projects LLP, Vijay Kochhar, Vinay Kochhar, Sarla Gupta, and Prem Chand Gupta. Section 420 IPC deals with cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property, carrying a maximum punishment of seven years.

A consolidated charge under Section 120B IPC read with Section 420 IPC and Section 13 read with Section 13 of the PC Act was also ordered against all the accused. Section 120B of the IPC pertains to criminal conspiracy, and together with the cheating and corruption charges, the case carries severe potential legal consequences for those found guilty. Under the Prevention of Corruption Act, a conviction can attract a maximum of 10 years of imprisonment.

The IRCTC case has been under judicial scrutiny for several years, and the framing of charges against the Yadav family marked a significant stage in the proceedings. The special court’s order reflected the seriousness with which allegations of misuse of public office for personal and financial gain are treated under Indian law.

Legal experts note that the high court’s hearing will likely focus on procedural aspects, including the sufficiency of evidence presented at the charge-framing stage and whether the accused were afforded adequate opportunity to respond. Framing of charges does not constitute a conviction but sets the stage for the trial to proceed and requires the accused to answer allegations before a full-fledged trial.

This case has drawn significant public and media attention due to the stature of the accused, the nature of the alleged offences, and the broader implications for political accountability and anti-corruption enforcement in India. Lalu Prasad Yadav, a former chief minister of Bihar and a prominent national leader, has faced multiple legal challenges over the years, with this case adding to the long list of proceedings against him and his family.

If convicted under the Prevention of Corruption Act and IPC provisions, the accused could face substantial jail terms, financial penalties, and further legal ramifications. The case underscores the rigorous legal mechanisms in place to address alleged corruption and financial irregularities involving public officials and their associates.

As the Delhi High Court prepares to hear the petition, stakeholders across political and legal circles are closely monitoring developments, recognizing the case’s potential impact on both governance accountability and the broader discourse on public corruption in India.