Delhi Court Dismisses Lalu Prasad Yadav, Rabri Devi’s Plea To Halt Day-To-Day Trial In IRCTC Scam Case
Pranav B Prem
A Delhi court has dismissed the application filed by former Bihar Chief Ministers Lalu Prasad Yadav and Rabri Devi challenging the conduct of a day-to-day trial in the alleged IRCTC scam case, in which they, along with their son Tejashwi Yadav and others, face charges of corruption, criminal conspiracy, and cheating. Special Judge (PC Act) Dr. Vishal Gogne of the Rouse Avenue Courts held that the plea seeking a gap of one week between successive hearings was “not maintainable, practicable or justified.” The judge emphasized that courts handling cases involving Members of Parliament (MPs) and Members of Legislative Assemblies (MLAs) are under clear directions from the Supreme Court and Delhi High Court to expedite proceedings and conduct trials on a day-to-day basis.
The case, being prosecuted by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), pertains to alleged irregularities in granting lease contracts for two IRCTC hotels in Ranchi and Puri to a private company, Sujata Hotels, during Lalu Prasad Yadav’s tenure as Union Railway Minister between 2004 and 2009. The CBI alleges that prime land was transferred to a company owned by Lalu’s family at a fraction of its market value in exchange for the hotel contracts.
Earlier, on October 13, the Court had framed charges against Lalu Prasad Yadav, Rabri Devi, Tejashwi Yadav, and several others under Sections 120-B (criminal conspiracy) and 420 (cheating) of the Indian Penal Code, along with Sections 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Following their plea of not guilty, the Court ordered the trial to proceed on a day-to-day basis.
Senior Advocate Maninder Singh, appearing for the Yadav family, argued that multiple criminal cases are pending against them before the same court and that in all these matters, day-to-day hearings have been directed. He submitted that the counsels appearing for the accused in all these cases are common and require reasonable time to prepare for cross-examination, particularly given the 18,000-page-long chargesheet and the 250-page order framing charges. Singh requested the Court to defer the matter for four weeks to allow adequate preparation. “The Court took four months to pass the order on charge. We also need time to go through everything. Our clients are not here, and the campaigning is on. We have to read the entire scenario in the chargesheet in correlation with the order on charge,” Singh submitted.
Opposing the plea, CBI Special Public Prosecutor D.P. Singh relied on the Supreme Court’s order dated November 9, 2023, in Ashwani Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India, which directed that cases involving MPs and MLAs be heard expeditiously and adjournments be avoided. The prosecution argued that the request for spacing out hearings was contrary to these binding directions.
Rejecting the plea, Judge Gogne observed that fixing the schedule of trial dates lies within the essential prerogative of the trial court. Referring to the Delhi High Court’s order in Court on its own motion v. Union of India (W.P. (Crl.) 1542/2020), he clarified that the direction was for listing such cases “at least once a week”, not only once a week, and that the examination of witnesses should, as far as possible, continue on a day-to-day basis once commenced.
“The spirit of the directions from the higher courts is for trial of such cases to be expedited, adjournments to be avoided, and for evidence to be recorded on a day-to-day basis once it is commenced,” the Court observed, adding that it was therefore “disinclined to bind and restrict its future daily orders” as prayed by the applicants. The judge also cited the Supreme Court’s decision in CBI v. Mir Usman alias Ara (2025 SCC OnLine SC 2066), which reiterated that once the examination of witnesses begins, it should continue day-to-day until completed, and that adjournments should not be granted unless for special reasons recorded in writing.
While rejecting the second prayer of the accused, the Court nevertheless allowed their request for additional time to prepare for cross-examination by deferring the examination of the first thirteen witnesses (PW1–PW13). It also fixed a detailed schedule for recording cross-examination between December 5 and December 20, 2025, and directed the CBI to submit the list of remaining witnesses to be examined by November 12, 2025. Thus, while acknowledging the defence’s logistical concerns, the Court upheld the principle that cases involving public representatives must be tried swiftly, in accordance with constitutional mandates and judicial directions for expeditious disposal.
Cause Title: CBI Vs. Lalu Prasad Yadav & Ors.
Case No: CC No.01/2020
Coram: Dr. Vishal Gogne [Special Judge (PC Act)]
