New Delhi: The Delhi High Court on Friday issued notice on a petition filed by former Bihar chief minister Rabri Devi, challenging a trial court order that framed charges against her in connection with alleged irregularities in the leasing of two Indian Railway Catering and Tourism Corporation (IRCTC) hotels during the tenure of her husband, Lalu Prasad Yadav, as the Union railway minister.

A bench of Justice Swarna Kanta Sharma directed the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to file its response to the plea and listed the matter for further hearing on January 19. The court also said it would hear, on the same day, a similar petition filed by former Bihar deputy chief minister Tejashwi Yadav, Rabri Devi’s son, who has also challenged the trial court’s October 13 order framing charges against him in the case.

The development marks a fresh stage in one of the most politically sensitive corruption cases involving the Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD) leadership, often referred to as the IRCTC hotels case. The proceedings have drawn sustained attention because they involve allegations of quid pro quo during Lalu Prasad Yadav’s stint as railway minister between 2004 and 2009.

Background of the IRCTC hotels case

The case relates to the leasing of two IRCTC-owned hotels—one located in Ranchi, Jharkhand, and the other in Puri, Odisha. According to the CBI, these hotels were leased to Sujata Hotels Private Limited, a firm owned by Vijay and Vinay Kochhar, through a tender process that was allegedly manipulated to favour the company.

The CBI’s charge sheet claims that the hotels were initially transferred from the Indian Railways to IRCTC and were later leased out for operation and maintenance between 2004 and 2014. The agency has alleged that the tender conditions were tailored in such a manner that Sujata Hotels emerged as the beneficiary, leading to a loss to the public exchequer.

At the heart of the prosecution’s case is the allegation that the favourable treatment extended to Sujata Hotels was part of a larger criminal conspiracy. In return for the hotel leases, the Kochhar brothers allegedly transferred land parcels and company shares to entities and individuals linked to the Yadav family at prices far below market value.

Trial court’s decision to frame charges

On October 13, the trial court framed charges against Rabri Devi, Tejashwi Yadav, Lalu Prasad Yadav, and other accused, concluding that there was sufficient material on record to proceed with the case. In Rabri Devi’s case, the trial court observed that there was prima facie evidence suggesting her participation in the alleged criminal conspiracy.

The court specifically referred to transactions involving Delight Marketing Company Private Limited (DMPCL), which later came to be known as Lara Projects LLP. According to the CBI, DMPCL purchased land parcels from the Kochhar brothers at an allegedly undervalued consideration. The prosecution claims that Rabri Devi and Tejashwi Yadav were beneficiaries of these transactions, with land allegedly being transferred in their names.

The trial court held that these transactions, when viewed in conjunction with the leasing of the IRCTC hotels, pointed to a quid pro quo arrangement and justified the framing of charges under relevant provisions of the Indian Penal Code and the Prevention of Corruption Act.

Rabri Devi’s challenge before the High Court

Aggrieved by the trial court’s order, Rabri Devi approached the Delhi High Court, arguing that the framing of charges against her was legally unsustainable and not supported by the evidence on record.

Senior advocate Maninder Singh, appearing on her behalf, contended that Devi had no role whatsoever in the alleged conspiracy. He argued that she was neither a director nor a shareholder of DMPCL and did not exercise any control over the company’s affairs.

According to the petition, there is no material in the charge sheet, the documents relied upon by the prosecution, or the statements of witnesses that even remotely suggest that Rabri Devi indulged in inducement, fraud, or dishonest conduct. “In the present case, neither the charge sheet nor its relied upon documents, nor any statements of the witnesses, even whisper any kind of inducement, fraud, or dishonesty,” the petition submitted.

The plea further argued that the trial court had mechanically accepted the prosecution’s version without independently examining whether the essential ingredients of the alleged offences were made out against Rabri Devi. It maintained that mere ownership of property, without proof of illegal consideration or criminal intent, could not form the basis for criminal charges.

CBI’s allegations of quid pro quo

The CBI, however, has maintained that the land transactions were an integral part of the alleged conspiracy. In its charge sheet, the agency claimed that a three-acre land parcel in Patna was transferred to DMPCL, which was later renamed Lara Projects LLP and allegedly controlled by associates of the Yadav family.

The agency alleged that the land was sold at a price substantially lower than the prevailing market value and was eventually transferred in the names of Rabri Devi and Tejashwi Yadav. These transactions, the CBI has argued, constituted illegal gratification in exchange for the awarding of public contracts, fitting the classic definition of quid pro quo.

The CBI has also alleged that the manipulation of the tender process caused financial loss to the public exchequer and undermined transparency in the allocation of public assets.

Parallel proceedings by Enforcement Directorate

Adding to the legal pressure on the Yadav family, the Enforcement Directorate (ED) has filed a money laundering case based on the CBI’s findings in the IRCTC hotels matter. The ED has named Lalu Prasad Yadav, Rabri Devi, their daughter, and Tejashwi Yadav as accused, alleging that the proceeds of crime generated through the alleged corruption were laundered through complex financial transactions.

The ED case is proceeding independently under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), though it draws its foundation from the predicate offences alleged by the CBI.

High Court’s interim relief

In a related development earlier this week, the Delhi High Court restrained the trial court from proceeding with the cross-examination of witnesses in the case. This interim protection was granted while the High Court considers the challenges raised by Rabri Devi and Tejashwi Yadav against the framing of charges.

Legal experts note that while the issuance of notice does not indicate the court’s final view on the merits of the case, it signals that the High Court is willing to closely examine whether the trial court correctly applied the law while framing charges.

Political and legal implications

The case has significant political ramifications in Bihar and at the national level, given the prominence of the Yadav family in Indian politics. Lalu Prasad Yadav has long alleged that the cases against him and his family are politically motivated, while opposition parties have cited them as evidence of entrenched corruption during his tenure in public office.

From a legal standpoint, the High Court’s eventual decision will be crucial in determining the scope of judicial scrutiny at the stage of framing charges. The court will have to balance the principle that charges can be framed on the basis of prima facie material against the accused’s right to be protected from unwarranted criminal prosecution.

What lies ahead

With the High Court having issued notice and sought the CBI’s response, the focus will now shift to the January 19 hearing. On that day, the court is expected to hear detailed arguments from both sides, not only in Rabri Devi’s case but also in Tejashwi Yadav’s petition.

The outcome could either clear the way for the trial to proceed against the accused or result in partial or complete relief if the court finds that the charges were framed without sufficient legal basis. Either way, the decision is likely to have far-reaching consequences for the future course of the IRCTC hotels case and the political fortunes of the RJD’s top leadership.