.jpg)
YMAM Desk
New Delhi, July 14, 2025:
The Rouse Avenue Court in Delhi has reserved its order on whether to take cognizance of the Enforcement Directorate’s (ED) prosecution complaint in the high-profile National Herald case involving senior Congress leaders Sonia Gandhi and Rahul Gandhi.
The court will announce its decision on July 29 on whether to proceed against the accused based on the ED’s complaint, which alleges money laundering and criminal conspiracy.
The matter is of significant public and political interest, as it concerns alleged financial irregularities linked to the transfer of assets worth over ₹2,000 crore.
Origins of the Case
The case began with a private complaint filed by former Union Minister Subramanian Swamy. He accused Sonia Gandhi, Rahul Gandhi, Motilal Vora, Oscar Fernandes, Suman Dubey, Sam Pitroda, and Young Indian—an entity controlled by the Gandhi family—of committing offences including cheating, criminal conspiracy, criminal breach of trust, and misappropriation of property.
Swamy alleged that the Congress party had improperly transferred the assets of Associated Journals Limited (AJL), the publisher of the National Herald newspaper, to Young Indian Pvt Ltd under the pretext of reviving the paper. According to the complaint, Young Indian acquired control over properties originally meant for public service through questionable financial arrangements.
ED's Prosecution Complaint
Building on Swamy’s allegations, the ED filed a prosecution complaint under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), naming Sonia Gandhi, Rahul Gandhi, Sam Pitroda, Suman Dubey, Sunil Bhandari, Young Indian, and Dotex Merchandise as accused.
The agency maintains that Young Indian was used as a vehicle to gain illegal control over AJL’s real estate assets across India by paying only a nominal sum. The ED alleges these acts constitute laundering of illicit proceeds and unlawful diversion of public assets for private benefit.
Legal Arguments
During court proceedings, the ED, led by Additional Solicitor General S.V. Raju, argued that the case reflects a classic case of money laundering disguised as a business restructuring. The prosecution asserted that public property was effectively taken over under false pretenses.
The defense, led by senior advocates Abhishek Manu Singhvi and R.S. Cheema, refuted these claims, arguing that the transaction was transparent and legally compliant. They maintained that there was no criminal intent, and the move was part of an effort to revive a historic publication.
What Lies Ahead
With arguments concluded, Special Judge Vishal Gogne has reserved the order and set July 29, 2025, as the date to pronounce whether the court will take cognizance of the ED's complaint. If cognizance is taken, the case could move into the trial phase, bringing further legal scrutiny to the actions of several senior Congress figures.
The case has drawn national attention not only for the scale of the alleged irregularities but also for the high-profile names involved. All parties now await the court’s decision, which could shape the next phase of the legal battle.