New Delhi: Describing the Enforcement Directorate’s (ED) case in the National Herald matter as “unprecedented and more than strange”, senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, appearing for Congress leader Sonia Gandhi, on Friday mounted a sharp legal rebuttal in a Delhi court.
Singhvi began arguments in response to Additional Solicitor General S.V. Raju, who had earlier defended the ED’s position seeking cognisance of its chargesheet filed under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).
“This is truly a strange case, more than strange — unprecedented,” Singhvi told the court. “It is a money laundering case with no laundered property, no use or projection of proceeds of crime.”
The ED has accused Sonia and Rahul Gandhi, along with the late Congress leaders Motilal Vora and Oscar Fernandes, and others including Suman Dubey, Sam Pitroda, and Young Indian Pvt Ltd, of being involved in a conspiracy to launder money by allegedly misappropriating over ₹2,000 crore worth of assets of Associated Journals Limited (AJL), the publisher of the National Herald newspaper.
The probe agency alleges that the Gandhis controlled 76% of Young Indian’s shares, and that the entity fraudulently acquired AJL’s assets in lieu of a ₹90 crore loan.
यह भी पढ़ें: National Herald case: नेशनल हेराल्ड मामला: सोनिया गांधी ने कोर्ट में ईडी के केस को बताया ‘अभूतपूर्व और अजीब’
However, Singhvi contended that the transaction was intended to make AJL debt-free, a standard corporate practice. “Assigning debt to another entity to clean a company’s balance sheet is lawful,” he argued. “Young Indian is a not-for-profit company—it cannot distribute dividends, offer perks, or salaries. So how is this laundering?”
He further questioned the ED’s long delay in pursuing the case. “The ED sat quiet for years and is now acting on a private complaint. The National Herald has historical and political association with the Congress Party—to remove it from that context would be like ‘Hamlet without the Prince of Denmark,’” Singhvi remarked.
The senior advocate also raised jurisdictional objections, claiming the current court lacked authority to try the matter.
Earlier, ASG Raju had argued that the Gandhis were the “beneficial owners” of Young Indian, and had gained total control after the passing of other shareholders, thus necessitating prosecution under Sections 3 and 4 of the PMLA.
The ED’s chargesheet also names Sunil Bhandari, Dotex Merchandise Pvt Ltd, and other associates, with allegations of strategic acquisition and laundering of AJL’s assets under the guise of corporate restructuring.
The matter is expected to see further hearings as the court examines both the maintainability and merits of the case.
