Senior Advocate RS Cheema, representing Congress leader Rahul Gandhi in the National Herald case, concluded his arguments on Monday before Special Judge Vishal Gogne.
Cheema asserted that the Congress Party aimed to revive Associated Journals Limited (AJL), not sell it, and emphasized that AJL is part of India’s freedom struggle legacy.
‘Young Indians benefited, not individuals’: RS Cheema
Addressing concerns over alleged financial irregularities, Cheema clarified that all monetary transactions were confined to Young Indian, a non-profit company.
“We have provided a complete account of the funds. If AJL benefits in any way, that benefit accrues only to Young Indian, not to any individual,” he stated.
AJL is a legacy of the freedom struggle
Cheema dismissed the allegations levelled by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) as ‘false and baseless’.
He said, “AJL is more than just a newspaper; it is a legacy of India’s independence movement, initiated by Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru, Rafi Ahmed Kidwai, and several other freedom fighters.”
According to Cheema, the objective behind reviving AJL was to strengthen a platform once used to disseminate the Congress Party’s ideology.
Cheema emphasised that AJL never operated as a profit-making venture and that it did not function as a commercial entity even after independence.
“The issue here isn’t loan recovery, but the revival of a historic institution,” he said, adding that Congress had no interest in personal financial gain from the AJL.
ED’s viewpoint is one-sided: Cheema
The ED has accused the Gandhi family of holding a 76% stake in Young Indian, which allegedly acquired AJL’s properties—worth ₹90 crore—in exchange for debt relief.
In response, Cheema said, “This is merely ED’s interpretation. Congress never sought profit from any such transaction.”
Earlier in the case, Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, representing Sonia Gandhi, argued that the case did not fall under money laundering.
He described ED’s chargesheet as speculative and said, “Even if Young Indian owns 100% of AJL, it is purely a matter of ownership, not money laundering.”
Singhvi further highlighted that AJL has been operating for over 65 years, and it is inappropriate to term it a laundering case after such a long duration.
The special court in Delhi continues to hear the case as it examines the legal battle over the ownership and purpose of AJL.
Also Read: SC Introduces OBC Reservation In Its Staff Recruitment & Promotions For The First Time
To read more such news, download Bharat Express news apps
