Delhi Court Issues Notice to Sonia Gandhi and Rahul Gandhi in National Herald Case
Lexpedia · 2 May 2025, 12:00 am

A Delhi Court on Friday issued notice to Congress leaders Sonia Gandhi and Rahul Gandhi in connection with the National Herald money laundering case. Special Judge (PC Act) Vishal Gogne of the Rouse Avenue Courts passed the order, acting upon a fresh prosecution complaint filed by the Enforcement Directorate (ED).
Allegations Arise from Controversial Transfer of AJL’s Assets
The controversy stems from the acquisition of Associated Journals Limited (AJL), the former publisher of the now-defunct National Herald newspaper. In 2010, a newly incorporated company, Young Indian Pvt Ltd (YIL), acquired the outstanding debts of AJL from the Indian National Congress for a sum of just ₹50 lakh. Subsequently, YIL assumed control over AJL’s vast real estate assets, which were valued at over ₹2,000 crore. Earlier this month, the Enforcement Directorate (ED) filed the prosecution complaint against the Gandhis in the case. The complaint has been lodged under Sections 44 and 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), 2002, for the commission of offence of money laundering. Sonia Gandhi and Rahul Gandhi held a majority stake in YIL, leading to allegations that they misused party funds to gain indirect control over AJL’s valuable properties.
Probe Focuses on Financial Transactions and Alleged Misappropriation
The ED’s investigation, which began in 2014, has closely examined the financial dealings between the Congress party, AJL, and YIL. The agency alleges that the Gandhis and other senior Congress leaders were involved in a deliberate scheme to misappropriate AJL’s assets for personal enrichment and to bypass legal financial procedures.
Properties Worth ₹661 Crore Targeted Under Money Laundering Provisions
In its most recent action, the ED has moved to take possession of several properties linked to AJL, estimated to be worth approximately ₹661 crore, under the attachment provisions of the PMLA. The agency contends that these properties are proceeds of crime and hence liable for confiscation under the law.








