Herald—ED’
National News: In a scathing submission before Delhi's Rouse Avenue Court on July 4, 2025, Singhvi called the ED’s charges against Sonia Gandhi “legally absurd.” Representing the Congress leader in the National Herald case, he argued that the Enforcement Directorate (ED) had failed to prove any diversion of funds or misappropriation of property. Singhvi noted that Associated Journals Ltd (AJL), the publisher of National Herald, still retains every inch of its nationwide assets. “No transaction, no transfer—so where is the money trail?” he questioned. “This is not a laundering case. This is a political file, dressed as a criminal case.”
Singhvi emphasized that not one square inch of AJL’s property was ever transferred to Sonia Gandhi or any Congress leader. He argued that Young Indian, the non-profit entity that acquired AJL shares, did so to clear AJL’s debts—not for personal or political gain. “Even after the share transfer, all assets legally and operationally remain with AJL,” he said. Young Indian is legally barred from sharing profits. The lawyer added that Congress’s association with Herald is historical and ideological, not financial. The case, he said, punishes legacy, not laundering.
Clarifying the structural shift, Singhvi said that AJL’s shareholding was moved to Young Indian only on paper, with no material asset exchanged. He dismissed ED’s claims of “unjust enrichment” by Congress leaders. According to Singhvi, the entire operation was to restructure and revive a debt-laden company. “There was no asset siphoning. The properties stayed intact under AJL’s name,” he argued. The transfer made Young Indian a 99% shareholder in AJL but did not grant ownership of its assets. “If no money, no transfer, and no use—how can this be laundering?”
Invoking key legal precedent, Singhvi cited the Vodafone case ruling, explaining that even 100% shareholding doesn’t imply ownership of assets. “Even if Young Indian holds all AJL shares, the properties are still AJL’s,” he said. He pointed out that ED's argument fails against decades-old laws and established judicial interpretation. Singhvi claimed the current prosecution attempts to reverse settled legal principles. “Using shareholding as evidence of asset transfer is not only flawed—it’s dangerous,” he stated. The case, he warned, could erode corporate legal safeguards.
Taking a sharp jab at ED’s process, Singhvi said, “There is no FIR, no authorized complainant, and no lawful investigation on record.” He questioned how the court could even take cognizance without procedural initiation. Under BNSS and PMLA, a case must be backed by a legally sound, origin-based document. “How can prosecution proceed when the origin of the case itself is legally hollow?” he asked. He insisted the court should reject the complaint for want of legal standing. “There is no criminality in a civil restructure,” Singhvi said firmly.
Singhvi pointed out that ED remained silent for over a decade, then suddenly revived an old private complaint. “From 2010 to 2021, the ED did nothing. Then one fine morning, they resurrected it,” he argued. He accused the agency of picking and choosing political targets. “Where is the urgency, the evidence, the reason?” Singhvi asked. He claimed ED hadn’t cited even one precedent where it acted on a complaint by someone without legal standing. “It’s not law; it’s narrative,” he said. The courtroom remained intensely attentive as he spoke.
The final argument posed a powerful question: why would anyone launder funds through a non-profit? Singhvi stressed that neither Young Indian nor its directors could benefit from AJL’s assets. “If Tata or Birla had taken over AJL’s debt, would this be called laundering?” he asked. Non-profits, by law, cannot distribute dividends or personal gain. The lawyer said no sane person would use a debt-laden non-profit for illegal wealth. “No money touched, no gain made—how can this be laundering?” he concluded. The court will continue hearings tomorrow.
Copyright © 2025 Top Indian News
