In a major setback for Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD), just weeks ahead of the Bihar Assembly elections, a Delhi court has framed charges against party chief Lalu Prasad Yadav, his wife Rabri Devi, and son Tejashwi Yadav in connection with the IRCTC hotel corruption case. The charges include criminal conspiracy, cheating, and violations under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
Special Judge Vishal Gogne, delivering the operative portion of the court’s order, stated that during his tenure as Railway Minister, Lalu Prasad Yadav had “influenced the tender process” involving two hotels owned by the Indian Railway Catering and Tourism Corporation (IRCTC).
According to the court, the contracts for maintaining the BNR hotels in Ranchi and Puri were awarded to Sujata Hotels in a manner that was not transparent. In return, land parcels were allegedly transferred at undervalued rates to members of Yadav’s family, including his wife Rabri Devi and son Tejashwi Yadav, through a benami company.
“The conspiracy is sublime, but is not hidden from the court’s view,” noted the judge, adding that “probable fraud must be tried as cheating” and that the “loss to the exchequer is not a euphemism but a monetary loss.”
All the accused pleaded not guilty. Former Bihar Chief Minister Rabri Devi told the court the case is “wrong”, while Lalu Yadav and Tejashwi Yadav also rejected the allegations and stated they are prepared to face trial.
The case dates back to Lalu Prasad Yadav’s tenure as Railway Minister between 2004 and 2009. The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) alleges that the contract for the management of two IRCTC hotels, BNR Ranchi and BNR Puri, was unfairly awarded to Sujata Hotels. In exchange, it is claimed that Lalu Prasad Yadav received three acres of prime land through a benami arrangement involving the Kochar brothers, Vijay and Vinay.
The CBI registered an FIR in 2017, naming Lalu Prasad Yadav, Rabri Devi, Tejashwi Yadav, and others as accused. During previous hearings, the CBI argued that sufficient material existed to frame charges, while the defence contended that the tenders were issued and awarded in a lawful and fair manner.
