The Delhi High Court on Tuesday issued notice on a petition filed by Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD) leader and former Bihar deputy chief minister Tejashwi Yadav, challenging a trial court order that framed criminal charges against him in the Indian Railway Catering and Tourism Corporation (IRCTC) hotels case. The case, one of several corruption-related matters involving the family of former Union railway minister and RJD chief Lalu Prasad Yadav, concerns alleged irregularities in the leasing of two prime railway hotels during Lalu Prasad’s tenure at the Centre.

A bench headed by Justice Swarna Kanta Sharma directed the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to file its response to Tejashwi Yadav’s petition and scheduled the matter for hearing on January 14. The court also made it clear that on the same day, it would hear a similar petition filed by Lalu Prasad Yadav, who has also challenged the framing of charges by the trial court.

“File your reply a day in advance,” Justice Sharma told CBI counsel DP Singh, indicating that the court expects the investigating agency to be prepared to address the legal and factual issues raised by the accused.

Background of the case

The IRCTC hotels case was registered by the CBI in 2017 and relates to the alleged manipulation of tender processes for the operation and maintenance of two IRCTC-owned hotels — the BNR Hotel in Ranchi, Jharkhand, and the BNR Hotel in Puri, Odisha. The hotels were leased out to a private company, Sujata Hotels Pvt Ltd, which was owned by businessmen Vijay Kochhar and Vinay Kochhar.

According to the CBI, these leases were granted during the period when Lalu Prasad Yadav served as Union railway minister between 2004 and 2009. The agency alleges that the tender process was rigged to favour Sujata Hotels in exchange for illegal gratification, which allegedly took the form of undervalued land parcels and company shares transferred to Lalu Prasad’s family members.

Trial court’s October 13 order

On October 13 last year, a Delhi trial court framed charges of corruption, criminal conspiracy, and cheating against Lalu Prasad Yadav, his wife and former Bihar chief minister Rabri Devi, and their son Tejashwi Yadav. The court held that the material placed on record by the CBI raised “grave suspicion” against the accused, sufficient to proceed to trial.

In strong language, the trial court observed that the alleged land and share transactions appeared to go beyond routine commercial dealings. It described them as a possible instance of “crony capitalism,” allegedly carried out under the guise of encouraging private participation in railway hotel operations.

“What elevates the suspicion to the grade of grave suspicion is that the land and share transactions were possibly an instance of crony capitalism fostered in the garb of eliciting private participation in the railway hotels,” the trial court said in its order. It further noted that commercial entities may have “ingratiated themselves to the then minister of railways” by transferring prime land in Patna to his wife and son at significantly undervalued rates.

Allegations by the CBI

The CBI’s case centres on events spanning nearly a decade. According to the chargesheet, between 2004 and 2014, the BNR hotels were first transferred from the Indian Railways to the IRCTC and were later leased out to Sujata Hotels for operation and maintenance.

The agency alleges that the tender process was deliberately structured and manipulated to ensure that Sujata Hotels emerged as the successful bidder. In return, the Kochhar brothers are accused of transferring land parcels and shares to Lalu Prasad’s family through a company named Delight Marketing Company Private Limited (DMCPL).

The CBI claims that these assets were transferred at “throwaway prices,” causing wrongful gain to the accused and corresponding loss to the public exchequer. It maintains that the transactions formed part of a quid pro quo arrangement, in which favourable treatment in the award of railway contracts was exchanged for private benefits.

Enforcement Directorate’s parallel probe

In addition to the CBI investigation, the Enforcement Directorate (ED) has also registered a case under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA). The ED’s case is based on the predicate offence alleged by the CBI and names Lalu Prasad Yadav, Rabri Devi, Tejashwi Yadav, and their daughter as accused.

The ED alleges that the proceeds of crime generated through the alleged corruption were laundered through complex financial transactions and investments in real estate. Several properties linked to the Yadav family have been attached as part of the agency’s probe.

Tejashwi Yadav’s defence

In his petition before the Delhi High Court, Tejashwi Yadav has strongly denied any wrongdoing. Represented by senior advocates Kapil Sibal and Maninder Singh, he has argued that the trial court erred in framing charges against him without sufficient evidence.

The petition contends that Tejashwi had no direct or indirect role in either the purchase of land parcels by DMCPL or in the awarding of the IRCTC hotel tenders. It asserts that the CBI has failed to produce any material to show that he participated in, or was even aware of, any alleged criminal conspiracy or quid pro quo arrangement involving his father.

Tejashwi has further argued that there is no evidence to suggest that he interacted with the Kochhar brothers or any other co-accused in furtherance of an alleged conspiracy. On these grounds, he has sought the setting aside of the trial court’s order framing charges against him.

High Court’s earlier remarks in Lalu’s plea

The Delhi High Court’s consideration of Tejashwi Yadav’s plea comes a day after it declined to grant immediate relief to Lalu Prasad Yadav in a related petition. On Monday, the court refused to stay the trial court proceedings against Lalu Prasad, noting that the order framing charges had been passed on October 13, while the petition challenging it was filed only in January.

The court’s observation suggested that the delay in approaching the High Court weighed against granting urgent interim relief. However, the substantive merits of Lalu Prasad’s challenge are also scheduled to be examined on January 14, along with Tejashwi’s petition.

Political and legal significance

The IRCTC hotels case carries significant political implications, particularly in Bihar, where Tejashwi Yadav remains a central figure in state politics and a key leader of the RJD. The framing of charges against him has been repeatedly cited by political opponents as evidence of corruption within the party’s leadership, while the RJD has maintained that the case is politically motivated.

Legally, the High Court’s decision on whether the charges were correctly framed will be crucial. At the stage of framing charges, courts are not required to determine guilt but must assess whether the material on record raises a strong or grave suspicion against the accused. If the High Court finds that this threshold was not met in Tejashwi’s case, it could set aside the charges and significantly alter the course of the proceedings.

As the matter now awaits further hearing, all eyes will be on the Delhi High Court on January 14, when it takes up both petitions and examines whether the trial court’s order can withstand judicial scrutiny.