Rabri accuses Delhi judge of bias, timing order before polls. ‘Façade to show justice done’

Rabri plea says accused were asked to argue on the charge while the CBI was allowed an opportunity to argue after the defence counsels concluded their arguments, in violation of legal procedures.

File photo of Lalu Yadav and his wife Rabri Devi | Praveen Jain | ThePrint

New Delhi: In a plea filed Monday, former Bihar chief minister Rabri Devi has accused a  judge of a deliberate attempt to sway voters against the RJD by timing an order in a corruption case just before the Bihar assembly polls.

Additionally, she also alleged that the Special CBI Judge Vishal Gogne made her, her husband former Bihar chief minister Lalu Prasad Yadav and son Tejashwi Yadav move up to the judge’s table during the pronouncement of the charges in the IRCTC hotel irregularities case and still read the order out aloud, in English and Hindi, to allegedly cause prejudice against the family.

Special judge Gogne is hearing four cases—two CBI cases, two Enforcement Directorate cases—against the family at Delhi’s Rouse Avenue Court. In the first case, the CBI has accused Lalu of altering the policy for extending contracts of renovation of hotels to hand them to a hotelier in exchange for prime properties in Patna. The ED has filed a money laundering case in the allotment of IRCTC hotels. The third case, the CBI has accused Lalu of acquiring land parcels from relatives of job seekers in exchange for group D jobs in Indian Railways during Lalu’s tenure as Union Railways Minister. The ED has also made out a case in this alleged scam.

Rabri Devi, an accused in the case of corruption and irregularities in the awarding of contracts for two IRCTC hotels during Lalu’s tenure as Union Railways Minister, made the allegations in a plea seeking transfer of all four cases against her family to a different court within the same jurisdiction. 

In her plea, a copy of which ThePrint has seen, she has said: “Thereafter (after argument of charges), the matter was repeatedly listed for pronouncement on… 23.07.2025, 07.08.2025, 13.08.2025, 25.08.2025 and 10.09.2025 on the pretext of seeking clarification, but on each of these dates, the matter was adjourned without seeking any clarification from either of the accused persons and no reason was provided as to why the said pronouncement kept getting adjourned only to pronounce it on 13.10.2025, ironically colliding with the time that the Model Code of Conduct was in force in the State of Bihar for the General Elections to the Legislative Assembly of Bihar seemingly to prejudice the applicant’s family.”

“The timing of the pronouncement of the order on charge during the subsistence of the Model Code of Conduct creates a reasonable and bona fide apprehension that it was deliberately designed to lower the prestige of the applicant’s family in Bihar and consequently sway the votes in the favour of the opposite parties and it is for this reason that no reasonable explanation had been given for the delay in pronouncement,” she further said in the plea.

The court has started hearing witnesses in the IRCTC case, while an order on charges is scheduled for next month in the land-for-jobs case. Arguments on charges are yet to be concluded in both the money laundering cases before the same court.

She has prayed for the transfer of all the cases ongoing before the Special Judge Gogne and has also requested the Principal Judge of the Rouse Avenue court for direction to keep proceedings in all these cases in abeyance till her plea is decided.

Rabri Devi has moved the plea before the administrative head of the Delhi’s Rouse Avenue court seeking his intervention under Sections 448 and 449 of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita that empower a sessions judge to transfer and recall cases under its jurisdiction respectively.

‘A façade to show justice was being done’

In a plea of around 30 pages, filed through her counsel Varun Jain, Rabri submitted case-wise instances, where, she alleged, decisions were taken with bias or undue haste.

In one such example, she alleged the judge did not decide on the accused persons’ plea to drop the proceedings on two grounds—lack of prosecution sanction and closure of the previous investigation. Instead, the judge kept the pleas open to be decided alongside the order on charges, which was against the established norms of criminal procedure.

She further alleged that the judge allowed the CBI to file certain documents without passing any formal order or seeking any clarification from the agency on why those documents were not included in the chargesheet. She also questioned the legality of such proceedings after the accused had concluded scrutiny of documents.

She further alleged that it was pointed out to the judge that the CBI had failed to explicitly describe the charge levelled against the accused at all stages, including before the commencement of arguments, during arguments, and even at the conclusion of arguments. However, she alleged, the court did not record the objections in the order sheets, but instead accepted the CBI’s arguments that all of those objections made by the accused would be responded to during the rebuttal.

‘Glaring circumstance’

She pointed out a “glaring circumstance” in the case as the accused was asked to argue on the charge while the agency was allowed an opportunity to argue after the defence counsels concluded their arguments, in complete contrast to the set legal procedures under which the prosecution has to open the arguments on the charge and explain the charges levelled against the accused persons.

“In a procedure unknown to law, the accused were asked to argue on charge and the CBI was given an opportunity to argue after the defence closed its arguments that too without referring to any evidence from the chargesheet against the accused, thereby giving them an added advantage of creating a new case and fulfill the lacuna in their case,” Rabri Devi alleged in the plea.

Rabri also said in her plea that the investigating officer’s (IO) submission was never made part of the order sheets (with no explanation), even though the defence counsels flagged “glaring inconsistencies”. The act of not recording the submission of the IO, Rabri alleged, was just a “facade to show justice was being done” without it actually being done by the court.

‘Forced to conclude arguments early’

To further make the point about the allegedly partisan conduct of the judge, Rabri alleged that her counsel was forced to conclude arguments on the charge by 5.30 pm on 28 May, despite his request for time. On the other hand, Rabri alleged, the CBI was allowed to rebut the accused’s argument the next day without any explanation.

Rabri further alleged that the court continued recording the statements of the prosecution witnesses in the absence of defence counsels between 27 October and 3 November, while he left pending a plea to keep dates of hearing a week apart. This was also done despite objections raised by the defence counsels, who said they needed time to go through the order on charges passed on 13 October. She said the application was decided only on 11 November and that a separate plea to strike off the recording of statements of the prosecution witness between 27 October and 3 November is being filed before the court.

“It is a well-established legal principle that justice should not only be done, but it should have seemed to have been done. The Hon’ble Higher Courts have consistently held that even a reasonable likelihood of bias is sufficient to invalidate judicial proceedings, as the administration of justice must command the confidence of the fair trial to the litigant,” she further submitted in the plea.

“Therefore, where circumstances exist which give rise to a reasonable apprehension in the mind of the applicant that the applicant may not get a fair trial, it becomes essential, in the interest of justice, equity and fair trail, that the matter be transferred to another competent court.”

(Edited by Viny Mishra)