National Herald Case: Sonia Gandhi Challenges ED Proceedings, Labels Case as Politically Motivated

July 04, 2025

An in-depth legal update on jurisdiction, asset transfer claims, and alleged procedural violations

Sonia Gandhi Questions Court’s Jurisdiction and ED’s Legal Foundation

Congress leader Sonia Gandhi, through her counsel Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, raised strong objections regarding the jurisdiction of the Rouse Avenue Court to take cognizance of the prosecution complaint filed by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) in the National Herald money laundering case. She argued that the entire matter stemmed from a private complaint filed by BJP leader Subramanian Swamy, who, according to Singhvi, is not an authorized complainant under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).

No Transfer of Property or Money, Says Singhvi

Singhvi firmly maintained that no transfer of money or property occurred from Associated Journals Limited (AJL) to Young Indian (YI). He clarified that Young Indian merely took over AJL’s debt, and AJL’s real estate assets remain under AJL’s ownership. There was no flow of illicit funds, he emphasized, hence the very foundation of money laundering allegations was flawed.

Young Indian is a Not-for-Profit Entity

In his submissions, Singhvi highlighted that Young Indian is a Section 8 company (not-for-profit) and thus not structured for profiteering. He stated that no Congress leader had personally benefited in the form of cash or assets, thereby refuting allegations of personal enrichment or asset usurpation.

Revival of AJL by Congress Through Legitimate Loan

Singhvi argued that AJL, which had a storied history and presence across India, needed financial assistance for survival. The Indian National Congress stepped in to provide a loan, not with an intent to siphon assets, but to revive a dormant publication house. He reiterated that ownership of the properties still vests with AJL, thereby negating the core premise of wrongful asset transfer.

Procedural Gaps: No FIR, No Authorised Complaint, Delayed Action

A key point raised by Singhvi was the absence of a First Information Report (FIR)—a mandatory precursor under PMLA to justify ED’s involvement. He submitted that the complaint from Swamy was private and unauthorised, and the ED’s decision to act upon it after an 8-year delay (post Swamy's 2012 complaint and initiation of ED probe) was procedurally unsound.

Further, he pointed out that 11 years had passed between the formation of Young Indian and the start of ED’s investigation, which casts serious doubt on the timing and intent behind the action.

Singhvi: “If Tatas or Birlas Took Over the Debt, Would This Be a Crime?”

Making a broader analogy, Singhvi asked:

“Had reputed industrial houses like Tatas or Birlas taken over the debt of AJL, would they be accused of money laundering too?”
This rhetorical question was used to demonstrate the subjective and political nature of the current prosecution, arguing that the targeting of Congress leaders lacked parity and fairness.

Shares vs. Assets: Technical but Crucial Legal Distinction

Another core legal argument advanced was that even though Young Indian acquired 99% shares of AJL, AJL as a corporate entity remains the owner of its properties. Ownership of shares, Singhvi explained, does not amount to ownership of underlying real estate. Thus, there was no “proceeds of crime” in the form of transferred assets.

Political Targeting Alleged, Historic Precedent Questioned

In a strong political and legal statement, Singhvi said:

“This is a political case. There’s no FIR, no authorised complaint, and no precedent in ED history where a private complaint was picked up years later to initiate prosecution.”

He further warned that selectively choosing private complaints could erode legal safeguards, setting a dangerous precedent for politically motivated prosecution under the guise of PMLA.

Rahul Gandhi's Hearing Up Next

After completing submissions on behalf of Sonia Gandhi, the Special Judge Vishal Gogne listed the matter for arguments by Rahul Gandhi’s counsel on a later date. The court is also expected to review the maintainability of ED's complaint in light of lack of FIR, alleged procedural impropriety, and the core question of whether any proceeds of crime existed.

Conclusion: Legal Battle Far from Over

The National Herald case is evolving into a complex legal and political confrontation, raising significant questions about jurisdiction, procedural correctness, the definition of proceeds of crime, and political misuse of enforcement agencies. Sonia Gandhi’s legal team has presented a jurisprudential challenge to the ED’s powers under PMLA, making it a pivotal test case for how far political cases can stretch legal frameworks.