Published: December 7, 2015 15:24 IST | Updated: December 8, 2015 04:47 IST NEW DELHI, December 7, 2015
Delhi High Court rejects Sonia, Rahul plea against summons in National Herald case
![]()
In an embarrassment to the Congress, the Delhi High Court on Monday dismissed the appeals of party president Sonia Gandhi, vice-president Rahul Gandhi and others seeking quashing of the summons issued to them by a trial court in the National Herald case.The Congress is likely to challenge the verdict in the Supreme Court on Tuesday.The summons, in response to which the Congress leaders have to appear before a Metropolitan Magistrate on Tuesday, were issued on June 26 last on a complaint by BJP leader Subramanian Swamy of alleged cheating and breach of trust in the acquisition of the now-defunct National Herald by Young Indian Limited (YIL). The Congress leaders own a stake as directors in YIL, registered as a charitable company.Charge of corruptionThe complaint alleged corruption in the assigning of loan worth Rs. 90.25 crore owed to the Congress by Associated Journals Limited (AJL), publisher of the National Herald, to YIL for Rs. 50 lakh. Justice Sunil Gaur made some scathing remarks on the “questionable conduct” in the acquisition of the publication and said the criminal proceedings could not be thwarted at the initial stage.“After having considered the entire case in its proper perspective, this court finds no hesitation in putting it on record that the modus operandi adopted by petitioners in taking control of AJL via the special purpose vehicle (YIL), particularly when the main persons in Congress, AJL and YI are the same, evidences a criminal intent,” the court said in its 27-page judgment.Besides Ms. Sonia Gandhi and Mr. Rahul Gandhi, the five others — Motilal Vohra, Oscar Fernandez, Suman Dubey, Sam Pitroda and Young Indian Limited — challenged the summons.The court said the gravity of the allegations had a “fraudulent flavour” involving a national political party. Therefore, serious imputations smacking of criminality levelled against the petitioners needed to be properly looked into, it said.Court says no mala fide can be attributed to SwamyCongress leaders are likely to make an urgent mention in the Supreme Court before a Bench led by Chief Justice of India T.S. Thakur, seeking a stay on the order, as soon as the court convenes on Tuesday.The Bench of Justice Sunil Gaur said the Congress’s transactions with AJL via YI were not mere commercial transactions, as they legitimately attracted the allegations of cheating, fraud, breach of trust and misappropriation. “Legal jugglery of words cannot persuade this court to opine at this initial stage that the allegations do not make out a prima facie case to summon petitioners.”On the Congress leaders’ challenge to the locus standi of BJP leader Subramanian Swamy to make the complaint, the court said the plea of locus could not be restricted to typical cases of cheating and misappropriation as “here is a case where the act of office-bearers of a political party having criminal overtones is under scrutiny.”“Whether it is cheating, criminal misappropriation or criminal breach of trust is not required to be spelt out at this nascent stage... By no stretch of imagination can it be said no case for summoning petitioners as accused in the complaint in question is made out. Questionable conduct of petitioners needs to be properly examined at the charge stage to find out the truth and so, these criminal proceedings cannot be thwarted at this initial stage,” said the court.The judge also ruled that no mala fides could be alleged against Dr. Swamy, nor could it be said that the summoning of petitioners was an abuse of the process of the court.When the High Court pronounced the verdict, the Congress was leading the Opposition charge in Parliament, confronting the BJP over Minister of State V.K. Singh’s “dog” remarks. On hearing about the judgment, the party said it would challenge the verdict in the Supreme Court. At a hurriedly convened press interaction, senior leader Abhishek Manu Singhvi said the verdict took them by “surprise” as it lacked substantive legal grounds.Criticising the BJP for playing “vendetta politics,” Congress spokesperson Randeep Singh Surjewala termed the complaint “mischievous and false.”
In an embarrassment to the Congress, the Delhi High Court on Monday dismissed the appeals of party president Sonia Gandhi, vice-president Rahul Gandhi and others seeking quashing of the summons issued to them by a trial court in the National Herald case.
The Congress is likely to challenge the verdict in the Supreme Court on Tuesday.
The summons, in response to which the Congress leaders have to appear before a Metropolitan Magistrate on Tuesday, were issued on June 26 last on a complaint by BJP leader Subramanian Swamy of alleged cheating and breach of trust in the acquisition of the now-defunct National Herald by Young Indian Limited (YIL). The Congress leaders own a stake as directors in YIL, registered as a charitable company.
Charge of corruption
The complaint alleged corruption in the assigning of loan worth Rs. 90.25 crore owed to the Congress by Associated Journals Limited (AJL), publisher of the National Herald, to YIL for Rs. 50 lakh. Justice Sunil Gaur made some scathing remarks on the “questionable conduct” in the acquisition of the publication and said the criminal proceedings could not be thwarted at the initial stage.
“After having considered the entire case in its proper perspective, this court finds no hesitation in putting it on record that the modus operandi adopted by petitioners in taking control of AJL via the special purpose vehicle (YIL), particularly when the main persons in Congress, AJL and YI are the same, evidences a criminal intent,” the court said in its 27-page judgment.
Besides Ms. Sonia Gandhi and Mr. Rahul Gandhi, the five others — Motilal Vohra, Oscar Fernandez, Suman Dubey, Sam Pitroda and Young Indian Limited — challenged the summons.
The court said the gravity of the allegations had a “fraudulent flavour” involving a national political party. Therefore, serious imputations smacking of criminality levelled against the petitioners needed to be properly looked into, it said.
Court says no mala fide can be attributed to Swamy
Congress leaders are likely to make an urgent mention in the Supreme Court before a Bench led by Chief Justice of India T.S. Thakur, seeking a stay on the order, as soon as the court convenes on Tuesday.
The Bench of Justice Sunil Gaur said the Congress’s transactions with AJL via YI were not mere commercial transactions, as they legitimately attracted the allegations of cheating, fraud, breach of trust and misappropriation. “Legal jugglery of words cannot persuade this court to opine at this initial stage that the allegations do not make out a prima facie case to summon petitioners.”
On the Congress leaders’ challenge to the locus standi of BJP leader Subramanian Swamy to make the complaint, the court said the plea of locus could not be restricted to typical cases of cheating and misappropriation as “here is a case where the act of office-bearers of a political party having criminal overtones is under scrutiny.”
“Whether it is cheating, criminal misappropriation or criminal breach of trust is not required to be spelt out at this nascent stage... By no stretch of imagination can it be said no case for summoning petitioners as accused in the complaint in question is made out. Questionable conduct of petitioners needs to be properly examined at the charge stage to find out the truth and so, these criminal proceedings cannot be thwarted at this initial stage,” said the court.
The judge also ruled that no mala fides could be alleged against Dr. Swamy, nor could it be said that the summoning of petitioners was an abuse of the process of the court.
When the High Court pronounced the verdict, the Congress was leading the Opposition charge in Parliament, confronting the BJP over Minister of State V.K. Singh’s “dog” remarks. On hearing about the judgment, the party said it would challenge the verdict in the Supreme Court. At a hurriedly convened press interaction, senior leader Abhishek Manu Singhvi said the verdict took them by “surprise” as it lacked substantive legal grounds.
Criticising the BJP for playing “vendetta politics,” Congress spokesperson Randeep Singh Surjewala termed the complaint “mischievous and false.”
http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/pleas-of-sonia-rahul-against-summons-in-national-herald-case-dismissed/article7957981.ece?homepage=true
HC Rejects Sonia, Rahul Pleas in Herald Case
http://m.newindianexpress.com/nation-2/583305
http://www.telegraphindia.com/1151208/jsp/frontpage/story_57339.jsp#.VmYkx1grLZY
| Tuesday , December 8 , 2015 |Sonia, Rahul face court date |
| R. Balaji |
 Sonia, Rahul The Congress denied this was a political setback and is believed to be gearing to move the Supreme Court tomorrow to have the single-judge bench's order stayed. As matters stand, the Gandhis and five other accused - Motilal Vora, Oscar Fernandes, Suman Dubey, Sam Pitroda and Young India Ltd - are to tomorrow appear in the trial court, whose August 2014 summons the high court refused to stay any further. Complainant Subramanian Swamy of the BJP has already moved a caveat in the apex court pleading he be heard before any order is passed. Justice Sunil Gaur, in his verdict, said: "This court is of the considered view that the gravity of the allegations levelled against the petitioners has a fraudulent flavour involving a national political party and so, serious imputations smacking of criminality levelled against the petitioners need to be properly looked into." Swamy has alleged that the Gandhis, through the company Young India Limited they had floated, had acquired the daily - whose assets he claims are worth Rs 5,000 crore - by paying just Rs 50 lakh from the Congress's funds. He says the publisher, Associated Journals Limited (AJL), had closed its operations in 2008 with an unpaid debt of about Rs 90 crore, and that Young India (YI) gave it an interest-free loan to clear its debts although the company could have done so by selling a part of its assets. Sonia and Rahul are among the directors of YI. Vora, the Congress treasurer, was managing director of AJL and later became a shareholder of YI, Swamy has said. He has said that YI acquired all the equity in AJL and rented out its properties to benefit its shareholders, including Rahul and Sonia, who he says together control 76 per cent stake. Justice Gaur has pegged the worth of AJL's assets at Rs 2,000 crore. "This court finds no hesitation to put it on record that the modus operandi adopted by the petitioners in taking control of AJL via a special purpose vehicle i.e. YI, particularly, when the main persons in the Congress party, AJL and YI are the same, evidences a criminal intent," he said. "Questionable conduct of the petitioners needs to be properly examined at the charge stage to find out the truth and so, these criminal proceedings cannot be thwarted at this initial stage." He added: "However, it has to be kept in mind that the allegations against the office-bearers of the Congress party are of siphoning off the party funds in a clandestine manner. What crops up in the mind of a prudent person is as to where was the need of extending interest-free loans to a public limited company engaged in a commercial venture of publishing newspapers. "Considering the fact that AJL has sizeable assets of Rs 2,000 crore, it needs to be explained by the petitioners as to what was the need to assign the huge debt of Rs 90 crore when this debt could have been easily liquidated by AJL from its sizeable assets. "Even writing off such a huge debt by the Congress party can legitimately attract allegations of cheating, fraud, etc. The petitioners had gone a step further in conspiring to get this huge debt assigned to a special purpose vehicle i.e. YI and, thereafter, to hijack AJL via YI." He added: "Is it not criminal misappropriation of the Congress party's funds?... It also needs to be examined at the pre-charge stage as to whether lakhs of citizens who had donated to the Congress party felt cheated by assignment of such a huge debt to YI who was managed by none others than the petitioners, who were office-bearers of the Congress party as well as directors of YI. "Not only this, the main persons, who were instrumental in allegedly siphoning off political funds were the recipients of the assignment of the huge debt by the Congress party and they were the same persons who had clandestinely acquired the control of AJL. All this smacks of criminality." |