BREAKING | National Herald Case Order Reserved: Delhi Court To Announce Decision Against Sonia & Rahul Gandhi on July 29

A Delhi court Today (July 14) reserved its decision on whether to proceed with the money laundering case involving Sonia Gandhi, Rahul Gandhi, and others in the National Herald case. The ED accuses them of illegally taking over properties worth Rs 2,000 crore.

Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!

BREAKING | National Herald Case Order Reserved: Delhi Court To Announce Decision Against Sonia & Rahul Gandhi on July 29

NEW DELHI: A Delhi court decided to hold its order for now in the high-profile money laundering case involving senior Congress leaders Sonia Gandhi and Rahul Gandhi.

The case is related to the National Herald newspaper.

The court will announce its decision on July 29 on whether it should officially take up the Enforcement Directorate’s (ED) charges for further legal proceedings.

Special Judge (PC Act) Vishal Gogne at the Rouse Avenue Court said the order will be pronounced on July 29.

Apart from Sonia and Rahul Gandhi, the ED has named several other people and companies in the case. These include Suman Dubey, Sam Pitroda, Young Indian, Dotex Merchandise, and Sunil Bhandari. All of them are proposed to be treated as accused in this case.

According to the ED, these individuals and entities were involved in money laundering through a company called Young Indian, which allegedly took over valuable properties belonging to Associated Journals Limited (AJL) — the original publisher of the National Herald newspaper.

BREAKING | National Herald Case Order Reserved: Delhi Court To Announce Decision Against Sonia & Rahul Gandhi on July 29

The ED has claimed that the value of these properties is more than ₹2,000 crore, and it believes that this property was the “proceeds of crime” generated through fraud.

ED says the entire incident was part of a criminal conspiracy. As per their claim, the shares of AJL were transferred to Young Indian only to illegally take control of AJL’s properties. These include both movable and immovable assets, and even the rent earned from these assets is being considered “proceeds of crime” by the ED.

However, the Gandhis strongly opposed these claims. They said that this is a very unusual and never-before-seen case where there are “allegations of money laundering have been made without use or projection of the property.”

BREAKING | National Herald Case Order Reserved: Delhi Court To Announce Decision Against Sonia & Rahul Gandhi on July 29

During the hearings, Congress leaders completely rejected the Enforcement Directorate’s charges. They said that Young Indian was not created to wrongly grab AJL’s properties. Instead, they explained that the main purpose of the move was to help AJL clear its debts.

They said that “the loan was to make AJL debt-free”, not to gain ownership of its assets illegally.

This entire issue started with a private complaint filed by former Union Minister Subramanian Swamy. He accused Sonia Gandhi, Rahul Gandhi, the late Motilal Vora, the late Oscar Fernandes, Suman Dubey, Sam Pitroda, and the Gandhi family-controlled Young Indian of serious offences like cheating, criminal conspiracy, criminal breach of trust, and misuse of property.

Following that complaint, the ED filed a prosecution complaint (similar to a charge sheet) against Sonia Gandhi, Rahul Gandhi, Sam Pitroda, and others on April 15 this year.

Many top lawyers are involved in this case on both sides.

For the Enforcement Directorate, the legal team included:

  • Additional Solicitor General (ASG) SV Raju
  • Special Counsel Zoheb Hossain
  • Special Public Prosecutor NK Matta
  • Advocates: Harsh Paul Singh, Annam Venkatesh, Vivek Gurnani, Hitarh Raja, Pranjal Tripathi, Ilma Khan, Siddharth Kaushik, Mohd Faizan Khan, and Agnima.

For Sonia Gandhi, the legal team was led by:

  • Senior Advocate Dr Abhishek Manu Singhvi
  • Advocates: Tarannum Cheema, Kanishka Singh, Akash Singh, Akshay Nagarajan, Nikhil Bhalla, Sumit Kumar, Sadeev Kang, and Rishabh Kant Sharma.

Rahul Gandhi was represented by:

  • Senior Advocate RS Cheema
  • Advocates: Tarannum Cheema, Kanishka Singh, and Nikhil Bhalla.

Suman Dubey’s legal team included:

  • Advocates: Sushil Bajaj, Alka Chohar, Aashish Chohar, and Akshya Nagarajan.

Sam Pitroda was represented by:

  • Advocates: Kuber Boddh, Manica Singh Avijit, and Somya Dhawan.

For Young Indian, the legal team was:

  • Senior Advocate Madhav Khurana
  • Advocates: Nakul Gandhi, Akash Singh, Amit, and Sanjivani.

Dotex Merchandise was represented by:

  • Senior Advocate Pramod Kumar Dubey
  • Advocates: Gautam Khazanchi, Vaibhav Dubey, Kushank Sandhoo, Anurag Andley, Ankit Vashishth, Muskan Sharma, Aditi Kukreja, and Anshala V.

Lastly, Sunil Bhandari’s lawyers included:

  • Advocates: Sowjhanya Shankaran, Siddharth Satija, Akash Sachan, and Anuka Bhachawat.

Background of the Case

The National Herald case revolves around the alleged misuse of funds and property by senior Congress leaders, including Sonia Gandhi and Rahul Gandhi. The controversy began when the Congress party gave a loan of Rs 90 crore to Associated Journals Limited (AJL), the company that originally published the National Herald newspaper.

AJL had stopped publishing the paper years earlier but continued to own valuable real estate across India, which had been allotted to it by the government for press-related activities.

In 2010, a new company named Young Indian Pvt Ltd was incorporated, with Sonia Gandhi and Rahul Gandhi holding majority shares.

AJL’s debt of Rs 90 crore was later assigned to Young Indian for just Rs 50 lakh, effectively giving Young Indian control over all of AJL’s assets, which were worth over Rs 2,000 crore.

This transaction raised serious questions about financial irregularities and alleged misappropriation of assets. In 2012, former Union Minister Subramanian Swamy filed a private complaint, accusing the Gandhis and others of criminal conspiracy, cheating, and breach of trust.

The case was taken up for investigation under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) by the Enforcement Directorate (ED), which claims the transaction was a deliberate attempt to gain control of prime properties through unlawful means.

Case Title:
Enforcement Directorate v. Young Indian and Others

Click Here to Read More Reports on National Herald Case

Click Here to Read Our Reports on Sonia, Rahul Gandhi

author

Vaibhav Ojha

ADVOCATE | LLM | BBA.LLB | SENIOR LEGAL EDITOR @ LAW CHAKRA

Similar Posts