The CBI on Wednesday told the Delhi High Court that Lalu Prasad Yadav, his wife Rabri Devi, and son Tejashwi Yadav must face trial in the IRCTC scam case, asserting that the absence of sanction for prosecution at the time of cognisance is not a ground to escape criminal charges.
Appearing for the agency before Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma, Additional Solicitor General D P Singh argued that sanction under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act was not required before taking cognisance of the offences. He cited a 2020 opinion by then Attorney General K K Venugopal to support the CBI’s position.
“Sanction is not required. But it was taken… during proceedings under Section 207 CrPC. No prejudice was caused. The entire proceedings remain valid. You don’t need to revert to the stage of cognisance unless prejudice is shown — and none has been argued or demonstrated,” Singh submitted.
The submissions came in response to petitions filed by the Yadav family members challenging the trial court’s October 13, 2025 order framing charges against them and several others.
The CBI also maintained that sanction was obtained subsequently, as permitted by law, to avoid further delay in the trial. The agency emphasized that the proceedings were not vitiated merely because the sanction came at a later stage.
The IRCTC scam case concerns alleged irregularities in awarding maintenance contracts for two Indian Railway Catering and Tourism Corporation (IRCTC) hotels during Lalu Prasad Yadav’s tenure as railway minister.
The trial court had framed charges under IPC sections including 420 (cheating), as well as under Sections 13(1)(d)(ii) and (iii) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, against Lalu Prasad, Rabri Devi, Tejashwi Yadav, and others, including:
- M/s LARA Projects LLP
- Vijay Kochhar and Vinay Kochhar
- Sarla Gupta
- Prem Chand Gupta
- Pradeep Kumar Goel
- Rakesh Saxena
- Bhupendra Kumar Agarwal
- Rakesh Kumar Gogia
- Vinod Kumar Asthana
Section 13 of the anti-corruption law relates to criminal misconduct by public servants, including abuse of position to obtain undue advantage. The charges carry a maximum sentence of 10 years under the Act and 7 years under IPC Section 420.
The petitioners have argued that the trial court wrongly proceeded without sanction under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act or Section 197 of the CrPC. The CBI, however, said the latter issue is a matter for trial and not a bar at the cognisance stage.
The matter is expected to be further heard in due course.
