Delhi High Court is set to consider on Monday a petition filed by Rashtriya Janata Dal chief Lalu Prasad Yadav challenging a special court order that framed charges against him and members of his family in the alleged IRCTC land-for-jobs case, a development that places renewed judicial scrutiny on one of the longest-running corruption prosecutions involving a former railway minister.The plea questions the legality and factual basis of the order passed by a trial court in Delhi, which concluded that there was sufficient material to proceed against Yadav, his wife Rabri Devi, their sons Tejashwi Yadav and Tej Pratap Yadav, and other accused. The charges stem from allegations that, during Yadav’s tenure as railway minister between 2004 and 2009, jobs in the Indian Railway Catering and Tourism Corporation were offered in exchange for land parcels transferred to family members or entities linked to them.
Yadav’s petition argues that the trial court failed to apply settled legal principles governing the framing of charges and relied on what the defence describes as conjecture rather than concrete evidence. It contends that the prosecution has not established a direct link between employment decisions taken by IRCTC and the land transactions cited in the case, and that the order proceeds on assumptions without demonstrating criminal intent.
The Central Bureau of Investigation, which is prosecuting the case, maintains that the pattern of appointments and subsequent land transfers points to a quid pro quo arrangement. According to the agency, land parcels in Patna and other locations were transferred to Yadav’s family members or companies at prices that did not reflect prevailing market values, shortly after appointments were made in IRCTC during his ministerial term. The agency has described the transactions as part of a broader conspiracy involving abuse of official position.
The trial court, while framing charges, held that there was prima facie material to proceed against the accused for offences including criminal conspiracy and corruption-related provisions. At this stage of proceedings, the court noted, a detailed examination of evidence was not required, only a determination of whether the allegations warranted a full trial. Yadav’s counsel has challenged this reasoning, asserting that even the threshold requirement of a prima facie case was not met.
The matter has significant political resonance, particularly in Bihar, where Yadav remains a central figure despite health issues and multiple convictions in earlier fodder scam cases. His son Tejashwi Yadav currently serves as deputy chief minister in the state, and the case has been repeatedly cited by political opponents to question the party’s governance record. The defence has characterised the prosecution as politically motivated, an allegation consistently rejected by investigators.
Legal observers note that the High Court’s consideration will focus narrowly on whether the trial court erred in law while framing charges, rather than on the merits of the evidence itself. High Courts have the power to quash charges if they find that the allegations, even if accepted at face value, do not constitute the offences alleged or if the proceedings amount to an abuse of the legal process. At the same time, appellate courts are generally cautious in interfering at the pre-trial stage.
The IRCTC case is one of several proceedings involving Yadav and his family. While earlier convictions have already led to sentences and disqualification from electoral office, this case pertains to a distinct set of allegations linked to railway appointments rather than misappropriation of public funds. The outcome of the High Court hearing could determine whether the case proceeds to a full-fledged trial or is curtailed at this preliminary stage.