Delhi High Court on Wednesday refused to halt the ongoing criminal trial against Rashtriya Janata Dal leader Lalu Prasad and his son Tejashwi Yadav in the IRCTC hotels case, signalling that proceedings before the trial court will continue while a legal challenge to the framing of charges remains under consideration. The Bench, however, indicated that the trial court may schedule cross-examination of prosecution witnesses in the “next-to-next” week, allowing time for the High Court to decide petitions filed by the father and son against the order that put them on trial.The ruling keeps intact the momentum of a case that has moved through investigation, sanction and charge-framing stages over several years. While declining interim relief, the court balanced competing interests by clarifying that the trial court could manage its calendar in a manner that does not prejudice either side while the challenge is heard. The petitions before the High Court contest the legality and sufficiency of the trial court’s decision to frame charges, a procedural milestone that typically follows a prima facie assessment of the prosecution’s material.
The IRCTC case centres on allegations that, during Lalu Prasad’s tenure as railway minister, contracts for the maintenance of two railway-owned hotels were transferred to a private entity in exchange for the acquisition of land parcels through alleged benami arrangements. Investigators have alleged that the transactions were structured to benefit members of the former minister’s family, including Tejashwi Yadav, then a young political functionary. The accused have consistently denied wrongdoing, arguing that the transactions were lawful and that the prosecution relies on conjecture rather than evidence.
At the trial court level, charges were framed under provisions dealing with criminal conspiracy and corruption-related offences after the court concluded that the material disclosed a prima facie case warranting a full trial. The defence challenged that finding, contending that the order did not adequately address gaps in the prosecution’s narrative, particularly the alleged quid pro quo and the ownership and valuation of the land in question. The High Court’s refusal to stay the trial underscores the principle that criminal proceedings should not be stalled lightly once a court has found sufficient grounds to proceed.
The Bench’s observation on scheduling cross-examination reflects judicial caution in managing parallel proceedings. Cross-examination is a substantive phase where the defence tests the credibility of prosecution witnesses. By suggesting that this stage be taken up after a short interval, the court sought to avoid a situation where extensive trial activity overtakes a pending challenge to the charge-framing order, potentially complicating outcomes if the High Court were to interfere later.
For the prosecution, the decision reinforces the threshold applied at the charge-framing stage, which does not require proof beyond reasonable doubt but only a strong suspicion based on material on record. Prosecutors have maintained that documentary evidence, statements and transaction trails collectively establish such suspicion. They argue that the proper forum to assess credibility and intent is the trial, not a pre-trial challenge.
For the defence, the High Court’s timeline offers a window to press arguments on jurisdiction, sanction and evidentiary insufficiency. Lawyers for Lalu Prasad and Tejashwi Yadav have stressed that prolonged trials impose reputational and political costs and that courts should intervene where the foundational order is flawed. They also point to the broader context of anti-corruption prosecutions involving public figures, urging heightened scrutiny to ensure fairness.
The case has broader political resonance in Bihar’s landscape, where both leaders remain influential. Tejashwi Yadav has held senior roles in state politics, while Lalu Prasad, despite health issues and prior convictions in other matters, continues to shape his party’s strategy. Court proceedings involving such figures are closely watched, not least for their potential impact on alliances and electoral narratives.