The Congress Party’s celebratory chest-thumping over the recent Delhi High Court proceedings in the National Herald case reveals something deeply troubling. Either the party does not understand the law it so frequently sermonises about—or it is deliberately misleading the country.
Contrary to the manufactured narrative pushed by Congress president Mallikarjun Kharge and the party’s legal practitioner Abhishek Manu Singhvi, the Delhi High Court has not exonerated Sonia Gandhi or Rahul Gandhi. It has not quashed the case. It has not questioned the merits of the prosecution. And it has certainly not endorsed the Congress’s claim of “political vendetta.”
What occurred was a procedural intervention, not a judicial absolution. To project it as a moral or legal victory is either breathtaking ignorance or calculated deceit.
The High Court’s concern was limited and technical: under the present legal framework, particularly after changes governing criminal prosecution, the Enforcement Directorate cannot proceed without a valid FIR registered by a competent authority. That is all.
Crucially, the same court has entertained an FIR filed by the Delhi Police that names Sonia Gandhi and Rahul Gandhi as prime accused in the National Herald case. This single fact demolishes the Congress’s claim that the case has collapsed. Can there be anything more humiliating to the party than when the court refused to give copy of the FIR?
A pause caused by the procedure is not relief. A delay is not dismissal. And a technical correction is certainly not exoneration.
What the Congress leadership conveniently suppresses is that every serious attempt to bury the National Herald case has failed in court.
Neither the Delhi High Court nor the Supreme Court has ever quashed the proceedings. On the contrary, courts have repeatedly held that a prima facie case of cheating and criminal conspiracy exists.
Both Sonia Gandhi and Rahul Gandhi are out on bail. Bail, in law, is not innocence—it is merely temporary liberty pending trial. Courts do not grant bail in non-existent cases.
If this were a frivolous or politically motivated prosecution, the judiciary—far from being timid—would have struck it down long ago. It did not.
At its core, the National Herald case is not about journalism or ideology. It is about control of vast public assets without investment, transparency, or shareholder consent.
Associated Journals Limited (AJL), which owned National Herald, held properties across India—Delhi, Mumbai, Lucknow, Bhopal, Patna, Panchkula—assets estimated at around ₹2,000 crore. These were not family heirlooms. They were institutional properties held in trust.
In 2010, a freshly minted company—Young Indian Private Limited—was created. Sonia Gandhi and Rahul Gandhi together held 76 per cent ownership. Through a series of paper transactions, Young Indian allegedly acquired control over AJL by taking over a debt of roughly ₹90 crore, without paying any actual consideration.
In simple terms, assets worth thousands of crores were brought under private control without spending a rupee, without independent valuation, and without the consent of AJL’s shareholders.
Image credit: India TV
That is precisely why courts have repeatedly held that the case merits trial.
The Congress would like the nation to believe this is a BJP invention. It is not.
The case began as a private criminal complaint filed by Dr Subramanian Swamy in 2012, when the Congress-led UPA was still in power. The trial court found sufficient grounds to summon the accused. Investigations by the Income Tax Department and the Enforcement Directorate followed the judicial trail—not political instructions.
If this were a vendetta, why did the UPA not bury it? Why did courts refuse to intervene even then? Why did the Supreme Court decline repeated pleas to quash proceedings?
Because evidence, not emotion, drives the case.
This is not a clerical lapse or a paperwork error. The allegations involve cheating and criminal conspiracy under the Indian Penal Code.
Under current law, conviction could mean up to seven years’ imprisonment, apart from fines and confiscation of assets. That is why the Congress leadership is so desperate to convert every procedural development into a political shield.
The law does not recognise surnames. It recognises conduct.
The most damning aspect is not the case itself but the Congress Party’s attempt to deceive the public.
A seasoned lawyer like Abhishek Manu Singhvi knows—better than most—that bail is not acquittal and procedure is not pardon. Yet half-truths are peddled because clarity would puncture the victimhood narrative.
This is the same party that lectures India daily on institutions, constitutional morality, and rule of law. But when law dares to examine its own leadership, the Congress suddenly discovers conspiracy.
The National Herald case is alive. It is inching forward. It has survived political change, judicial scrutiny, and relentless spin.
No slogan can erase that. No press conference can nullify it.
The Congress can continue to mislead, or it can face the law with honesty. The courts, however, have already made their position clear: there is enough here to answer, and nowhere to hide behind dynasty.
The final verdict will not be delivered on television studios or party stages—but in a court of law.
And that is precisely what the Congress fears most.
