National Herald case: Delhi HC seeks response from Sonia Gandhi, Rahul Gandhi on ED appeal

National Herald case: The Delhi High Court has issued notices to Congress leaders Sonia Gandhi and Rahul Gandhi seeking their response to the Enforcement Directorate's (ED) appeal in the National Herald case. The ED has challenged the trial court's order which refused to take cognizance of the ED's investigation. Sonia and Rahul Gandhi have now been asked to file their replies to the ED's petition.

Also Read: National Herald Case: Court Refuses To Take Cognizance of ED Charge sheet, Major Relief For Gandhis

Next hearing in this case will be in March 2026

The Delhi High Court heard the ED's appeal in the National Herald case on Monday. The ED is being represented by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta. Mehta argued that the lower court's order refusing to take cognizance is tantamount to rendering the PMLA (Prevention of Money Laundering Act) meaningless. We have provided a detailed account of the entire factual basis and timeline. Associated Journals Limited (AJL) was incorporated. Subsequently, during 2002-2003, AJL owed Congress a loan of approximately Rs 88 crore.

Court asked, "What is this AJL?"

High court asked, "What is this AJL?" To this, the ED responded that it is an unlisted public company called Associated Journals Limited. The ED further stated that a letter was sent to AJL by Young India. It mentioned the repayment of the previously taken loan or its conversion into equity. All of this happened in a systematic and planned manner, one after another.

Story that began in August 2010, as narrated by the ED

AJL issues a notice for its Annual General Meeting (AGM). A resolution is passed even before the actual assignment of the AICC loan. The ED stated that the real story begins in August 2010. AJL was given a loan of Rs. 90 crore by the All India Congress Committee. Within 20 days, new directors were appointed to AJL. Also Read: Pankaj Chaudhary Becomes The New UP BJP President... He is 7-Time MP And OBC Leader

At that time, AJL had assets worth Rs. 100 crore. Then, on January 22, 2011, two more people, Sonia Gandhi and Rahul Gandhi, were inducted into the board of directors of Young India. Each of them received 38% shares, meaning they collectively held 76% of the shares in Young India. Young India also acquired the rights to recover money from AJL. Then, on November 23, 2012, Young Indian was incorporated with a share capital of Rs. 5 lakh. Of these shares, Sam Pitroda held 550 shares, while Dubey held 550 shares.

Complaint filed by Dr. Subramanian Swamy in 2016

The ED argued that in June 2016, a private complaint was filed (by Dr. Subramanian Swamy). The court took cognizance of the offenses mentioned in the complaint. This included charges under Sections 420 and 120B of the IPC, along with financial manipulation. Section 420 of the IPC is a scheduled offense. The cognizance order was challenged. The court rejected their challenge petition, and then they took the matter to the Supreme Court. Even there, it was not considered; that is, the Supreme Court upheld the court's order taking cognizance of the chargesheet.

Summary

However, this private complaint is a cognizable offense. The competent court had taken cognizance of the allegations of this offense. When we went to court after completing the process of taking cognizance of our charge sheet, the court dismissed it, saying that it did not begin with an FIR and that it was a private complaint.