The Delhi High Court on Tuesday sought a response from the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) on a petition filed by Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD) leader Tejashwi Prasad Yadav, challenging a trial court order that framed criminal charges against him in the alleged Indian Railway Catering and Tourism Corporation (IRCTC) scam case. The case relates to alleged irregularities in the awarding of contracts for the operation of two IRCTC-owned hotels during the tenure of his father, Lalu Prasad Yadav, as Union railway minister.

A bench headed by Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma issued notice to the CBI on both Tejashwi Yadav’s main petition and his accompanying application seeking a stay on the trial court proceedings. The high court listed the matter for further hearing on January 14. Notably, on the same day, the court will also hear a similar plea filed by Lalu Prasad Yadav, who has challenged the same order framing charges against him.

Background of the trial court order

The petitions before the high court arise from an order passed by a special CBI court on October 13, 2025. In that order, the trial court framed charges against Lalu Prasad Yadav, his wife and former Bihar chief minister Rabri Devi, their son Tejashwi Prasad Yadav, and 11 other accused persons. The charges relate to alleged offences of cheating, criminal conspiracy, and corruption under provisions of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the Prevention of Corruption Act.

The trial court held that there was sufficient material on record to raise a prima facie case against the accused, warranting the framing of charges and the commencement of trial. The accused have denied the allegations and claimed that the case is politically motivated.

Allegations at the core of the IRCTC scam case

The IRCTC scam case centres on alleged irregularities in the grant of operational and maintenance contracts of two IRCTC hotels — the BNR Hotel in Ranchi, Jharkhand, and the BNR Hotel in Puri, Odisha — to a private company. The contracts were awarded during the period when Lalu Prasad Yadav served as Union railway minister.

According to the CBI, the process of transferring the hotels from Indian Railways to the IRCTC and subsequently leasing them to a private firm was manipulated to favour specific entities. The investigating agency has alleged that the contracts were granted to private players in violation of established norms, causing wrongful loss to the public exchequer and corresponding gains to the beneficiaries.

The private firm at the centre of the controversy is linked to businessmen Vijay Kochhar and Vinay Kochhar. The CBI alleges that, in exchange for favourable treatment in the awarding of hotel contracts, land parcels and company shares were transferred to members of Lalu Prasad Yadav’s family at undervalued prices. These transactions, the agency claims, formed part of a quid pro quo arrangement.

Charges framed against the accused

In its October 13 order, the trial court framed charges against several accused under Section 13 read with Section 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. These provisions relate to criminal misconduct by a public servant, including abuse of official position to obtain undue advantage.

Apart from Lalu Prasad Yadav, charges under these provisions were framed against Pradeep Kumar Goel, Rakesh Saksena, Bhupendra Kumar Agarwal, Rakesh Kumar Gogia, and Vinod Kumar Asthana. The court noted that the allegations, if proved, could establish that public office was misused to benefit private parties.

The court also directed that charges be framed under Section 420 of the IPC, which deals with cheating, against Lalu Prasad Yadav, Rabri Devi, Tejashwi Prasad Yadav, M/s LARA Projects LLP, Vijay Kochhar, Vinay Kochhar, Sarla Gupta, and Prem Chand Gupta.

In addition, the trial court ordered that a common charge of criminal conspiracy be framed against all accused under Section 120B of the IPC, read with Section 420 IPC and the relevant provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

“A common charge is directed to be framed against all accused under Section 120B IPC read with Section 420 IPC and Section 13 read with Section 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act,” the trial court said in its order.

Legal implications of the charges

The framing of charges marks a critical stage in a criminal trial, as it indicates that the court believes there is sufficient material to proceed with a full-fledged examination of evidence. While the court does not assess guilt at this stage, it must be satisfied that the allegations raise a strong suspicion against the accused.

Under the Prevention of Corruption Act, the maximum punishment prescribed is up to 10 years of imprisonment, depending on the nature of the offence proved. The offence of cheating under Section 420 of the IPC carries a maximum punishment of seven years’ imprisonment. The charge of criminal conspiracy can attract additional penalties, depending on the substantive offences involved.

Grounds raised by Tejashwi Yadav

In his petition before the Delhi High Court, Tejashwi Prasad Yadav has challenged the trial court’s order on both legal and factual grounds. He has contended that the court erred in framing charges against him without sufficient evidence to establish his involvement in the alleged offences.

Tejashwi has argued that he was neither a public servant at the relevant time nor involved in the decision-making process related to the awarding of IRCTC hotel contracts. He has also claimed that there is no material on record to show that he participated in any criminal conspiracy or derived any illegal benefit from the alleged transactions.

His plea seeks the quashing of the charges framed against him, arguing that allowing the trial to proceed would amount to an abuse of the legal process.

Lalu Prasad Yadav’s parallel challenge

Former Union railway minister Lalu Prasad Yadav has also approached the Delhi High Court challenging the same trial court order. His petition raises similar objections, including allegations of political vendetta and lack of evidence to substantiate the charges.

The high court has decided to hear both petitions together on January 14, given that they arise from the same order and involve overlapping facts and legal issues.

What lies ahead

With the Delhi High Court now seeking the CBI’s response, the next hearing will be crucial in determining whether the charges framed by the trial court will stand or be set aside, at least in respect of some of the accused. If the high court finds merit in the petitions, it could quash the charges or grant interim relief. If not, the trial proceedings before the special CBI court are likely to continue.

The IRCTC scam case remains one of the most high-profile corruption cases involving senior political figures, with significant legal and political ramifications. As the matter progresses, the high court’s scrutiny of the charge-framing order will play a decisive role in shaping the future course of the trial.