Tejashwi Yadav dismisses the case as a “political vendetta,” highlighting how corruption probes often surface before elections in Bihar.
By Navin Upadhyay
October 13, 2025: A timeline of events linked to the IRCTC scandal reveals striking coincidences — every major development in the case has unfolded either during elections or moments of political flux in Bihar. The alleged corruption that took place in 2004–2005, when Lalu Prasad Yadav was Union Railway Minister, came to light nearly a decade later. The CBI registered an FIR in 2013, but the case’s real political weight was felt only when Bihar’s coalition equations began to shift.
At its core, the IRCTC hotel tender scam revolves around allegations that during Lalu Prasad Yadav’s tenure as Railway Minister in 2004–2005, contracts for running two IRCTC hotels — in Ranchi and Puri — were awarded to a Delhi-based firm in exchange for prime land in Patna being transferred to a company controlled by his family. Investigators allege that the deal was structured to disguise this land transfer as a legitimate commercial transaction, creating what the CBI later described as a “classic case of quid pro quo.” The FIR, filed in 2013, named Lalu, Rabri Devi, and others under charges of criminal conspiracy and corruption. Lalu Prasad, Rabri Devi and Tejashvi Yadav have stoutly rejected the charges.
However, what makes the IRCTC case remarkable is not just its legal content but its political timing. The case has resurfaced repeatedly at moments of high-stakes politics in Bihar — often just before elections or during coalition crises. From Nitish Kumar’s 2017 defection to the NDA, to the run-up to the 2019 general elections, and again in 2025, the case has functioned as a pressure tool and narrative weapon. Each revival has allowed rivals to question the RJD’s integrity while offering Nitish Kumar and the BJP opportunities to reinforce their claims to “clean governance.” In Bihar’s volatile political climate, where alliances shift as often as accusations, the IRCTC case has become less about the hotel tenders of 2005 and more about the enduring power of corruption charges as instruments of political strategy.
READ: Tech Giants Lose $770 Billion After Trump’s 100% Tariff Threat on China
Charges Framed Against Lalu & Family, But Can NDA Make It an Issue?#BiharElections2025 #LaluYadav #RJD #NDABihar #IRCTCScam #CorruptionPolitics https://t.co/ocDH9w9jCR pic.twitter.com/jYKuz0kTzC
— POWER CORRIDORS (@power_corridors) October 13, 2025
HERE IS THE TIMELINE:
2005 — The Origins
As Union Railway Minister, Lalu Prasad Yadav allegedly favored Delhi-based hoteliers Vijay and Vinod Kochhar by awarding contracts for two IRCTC-run hotels — BNR Ranchi and BNR Puri — to their company, Sujata Hotels (earlier DMRC Hotels). In exchange, the Kochhars allegedly transferred three acres of prime Patna land to Delight Marketing, a company controlled by Lalu’s family, at a nominal price.
October 2013 — The CBI Steps In
The CBI registered an FIR against Lalu Prasad, Rabri Devi, and others for criminal conspiracy, corruption, and money laundering — including irregularities in the IRCTC hotel tender process. However, the case remained dormant for years, resurfacing only during politically charged moments.
For over a decade, the IRCTC case has re-emerged like clockwork before elections or amid political upheaval — prompting Tejashwi Yadav to remark after appearing in court for framing of charges:
“Elections are coming, so things like this will happen… We will reach our destination. The people of Bihar are watching.”
2017: How the IRCTC Scam Became a Political Lever Against Nitish Kumar
The revival of the IRCTC case in 2017 was not merely a legal event — it became the catalyst for one of Bihar’s most dramatic political realignments.
At that time, Nitish Kumar was leading the Mahagathbandhan government with the RJD and Congress, formed in 2015. But by mid-2017, pressure was growing within the JD(U) over corruption allegations against Tejashwi Yadav, then serving as Deputy Chief Minister.
In May 2017, the CBI filed an FIR naming Lalu, Rabri, and Tejashwi, accusing them of criminal conspiracy and bribery. The Enforcement Directorate followed with a money laundering probe under the PMLA, conducting raids on the Yadav family’s properties in June–July 2017.
Amid the turmoil, Sushil Kumar Modi — a senior BJP leader and longtime rival of Lalu — seized the opportunity. Once sidelined in Bihar politics, Sushil Modi re-emerged as the BJP’s key voice, holding daily press conferences, exposing alleged irregularities, and relentlessly targeting the RJD. Having earlier played a crucial role in exposing the fodder scam, he once again positioned himself at the center of Bihar’s anti-Lalu crusade.
The BJP, then in opposition, amplified the scandal, framing Nitish’s alliance with the RJD as a “betrayal of clean governance.” As CBI raids filled the headlines, Nitish faced a dilemma — whether to preserve his “Mr. Clean” image or continue in power alongside a corruption-tainted ally.
On July 26, 2017, Nitish Kumar resigned from the Grand Alliance, citing corruption and moral pressure. Within 24 hours, he returned to the NDA fold, forming a new government with the BJP’s support. Sushil Modi was rewarded with the post of Deputy Chief Minister, marking a complete political turnaround.
In retrospect, the timing of the IRCTC case proved pivotal. It gave Nitish Kumar the moral cover to execute his U-turn while simultaneously eroding Lalu Prasad’s political leverage.
The case was not just a corruption probe — it became a strategic political instrument used to engineer a realignment that reshaped Bihar’s governance for years to come.
2018–2019 — A National Echo
As the ED widened its investigation, the case conveniently resurfaced during the 2019 general elections, reinforcing the BJP’s national “anti-corruption” narrative and cornering the RJD. By 2020, however, the issue had lost traction. Tejashwi Yadav shifted his campaign focus to unemployment and social justice, distancing the RJD from its past scandals.
2020–2023 — Legal Drift
The case slowed during the COVID-19 pandemic, marked by repeated adjournments and procedural delays. The defense questioned the maintainability of charges and the ED’s jurisdiction, further extending the proceedings.
February 2024 — Final Push Before Elections
In early 2024, in the run-up to the general election, IRCTC scam again resurfaced, and the court directed all accused to appear for final arguments before framing charges. The CBI reaffirmed that the transfer of land to Delight Marketing was a clear case of “quid pro quo” corruption.
VIDEO | On chargesheet filed against RJD chief Lalu Yadav and his family in connection with alleged IRCTC scam, RJD leader Tejashwi Yadav (@yadavtejashwi) says, “This was the normal court procedure. The court had summoned us today, and we went there. We will fight the case. We… pic.twitter.com/PtUCrrEmCo
— Press Trust of India (@PTI_News) October 13, 2025
October 13, 2025 — Charges Finally Framed
After years of procedural delays, the Rouse Avenue Court in New Delhi formally framed charges against Lalu Prasad Yadav, Rabri Devi, and Tejashwi Yadav for cheating, conspiracy, and corruption. All three pleaded not guilty and opted to face trial. The timing is crucial. The development came at the peak of Bihar electioneering.
Alluding to the significance of the timing, Tejashwi Yadav dismissed the case as “political vendetta” while speaking to reporters outside the court. “The people of Bihar know the truth,” he said. “These cases surface every time elections approach.”
Tejashwi’s words capture the familiar rhythm of Bihar’s political theatre — where corruption cases, court summons, and CBI raids often appear less as instruments of justice and more as moves in a calculated game of timing and power. Whether coincidence or design, the IRCTC scam has repeatedly resurfaced at moments that reshape the state’s alliances and electoral dynamics. As Bihar heads into another election year, the framing of charges against the Yadav family may once again stir headlines, but its ultimate impact will depend not on courtroom verdicts, but on how voters read the political intent behind them.
