Senior Congress leader Sonia Gandhi, through her counsel Abhishek Manu Singhvi, has strongly contested the Enforcement Directorate’s (ED) money laundering allegations in the ongoing National Herald case, describing the charges as “unprecedented” and lacking the essential elements of the offence.
Appearing before a special court in Delhi, Singhvi argued that the case is “truly a strange one,” pointing out that the ED’s prosecution is based on an alleged money laundering offence without any property being used, moved, or projected as proceeds of crime. He emphasized that Young Indian, the company at the center of the controversy, is a not-for-profit entity, legally barred from distributing dividends, perks, or bonuses.
Singhvi maintained that the restructuring involving Associated Journals Limited (AJL)—the publisher of the now-defunct National Herald newspaper—was undertaken solely to make AJL debt-free. “Every company is entitled under law to restructure debt. Assigning it to another entity is a lawful and routine practice,” he stated.
The ED has accused Sonia Gandhi, Rahul Gandhi, and other Congress leaders of conspiring to fraudulently acquire over ₹2,000 crore worth of AJL assets through Young Indian, in exchange for a ₹90 crore loan from the Congress party. The agency claims the Gandhis held a 76% stake in Young Indian and used it to usurp AJL’s properties for personal gain.
The chargesheet, filed under Sections 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), also names Motilal Vora, Oscar Fernandes, Suman Dubey, Sam Pitroda, and Dotex Merchandise Private Limited.
Singhvi criticized the ED for its 11-year delay in initiating action, stating that the agency acted only after a private complaint was filed. He also questioned the jurisdiction of the present court to try the case, citing multiple legal grounds.
In a pointed remark, Singhvi likened the ED’s approach to staging “Hamlet without the Prince of Denmark,” arguing that the National Herald is intrinsically linked to the Congress party and its legacy. He asserted that the case is politically motivated and lacks substantive legal merit.
The court is expected to continue hearing arguments on the cognizance of the chargesheet in the coming days, as the defense seeks to dismantle what it calls a “flawed and politically charged” prosecution.
