national herald case study

• WEB STORIES New
• ENTERTAINMENT
• CAREER & CAMPUS
• INFOGRAPHICS
• ISL 2023-24

• Manorama Online
• Manorama News TV
• ManoramaMAX
• Radio Mango
• Subscription

Explained | What's the National Herald case haunting Gandhis

President of Indian National Congress Sonia Gandhi and her son Rahul Gandhi were questioned for several hours by the Enforcement Directorate over the National Herald case.

The Supreme Court dismissed over 240 pleas, filed mostly by Congress activists, questioning the powers of the Enforcement Directorate (ED). The apex court upheld the ED's powers relating to arrest, attach property, search and seizure under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA). With this, every step the ED had executed during the probe of the National Herald case received legal approval.

The National Herald corruption case was first brought to the limelight in 2012 when BJP leader and lawyer Subramanian Swamy filed a complaint against some Congress leaders in a Delhi court. The complaint alleged that Young Indian Ltd (YIL) -- a charitable company owned by Sonia, Rahul, Motilal Vora and Oscar Fernandes -- has taken over the assets of the National Herald newspaper owned by Associated Journals Limited (AJL) in a 'malicious' way.

Money-laundering probe: ED asks Sonia Gandhi to depose late July

National Herald case: ED issues fresh summons to Sonia Gandhi

Sonia Gandhi, Congress MP Rahul Gandhi, Congress treasurer Motilal Vora, general secretary Oscar Fernandes, journalist Suman Dubey and technocrat Sam Pitroda were named as accused in the case.

National Herald and AJL

The National Herald newspaper, which was founded by Jawaharlal Nehru and a few other freedom fighters in 1938, was published by the AJL. The AJL also published Qaumi Awaz in Urdu and Navjeevan in Hindi.

The National Herald began as an echo of the liberal faction of the Indian National Congress to eventually graduate as the mouthpiece of the party after Independence.

The AJL, which was started by Nehru, had over 5,000 freedom fighters as its shareholders. The AJL was an unlisted public company which began with a capital of Rs 5 lakh. The capital was divided into 30,000 equity shares of Rs 10 each and 2,000 preferential shares of Rs 100 each.

The publication of the newspapers under AJL was suspended from time to time due to financial difficulties and labour issues and it finally shut shop on April 2, 2008.

The AJL, which had 1,057 shareholders and an outstanding loan of Rs 88 crore in March 2010, was acquired for Rs 50 lakh by Young Indian Ltd in December 2010.

Inception of Young Indian

Young Indian was a private entity incorporated in November 2010 by Sonia Gandhi, Oscar Fernandes and others. The company, which came into being with just Rs 5 lakh share capital, allegedly obtained a loan of Rs 1 crore from a Kolkata-based shell company to facilitate the acquisition of AJL.

Out of the total shares of the company, 76 per cent are jointly held by Sonia Gandhi and Rahul Gandhi, and the remaining 24 per cent by Congress leaders Motilal Vora and Oscar Fernandes (12 per cent each). Rahul Gandhi was appointed director of the firm in December 2010 and Sonia Gandhi joined the board of directors in 2011.

The firm was initially registered in the address of senior journalist Suman Dubey in N-125, Panchsheel Park, New Delhi, and later shifted to 5 A Herald House, headquarter of AJL, in January 2011.

It was registered as a Section 25 company, exempted from tax as a charitable non-profit organisation. Section 25 companies are for promoting commerce, art, science, religion or charity.

According to the Enforcement Directorate, the company which started with Rs 5 lakh capital owns around Rs 800 crore worth of assets today.

Misappropriation case

Subramanian Swamy in his petition alleged that the All India Congress Committee (AICC) loaned Rs 90 crore to the AJL. AJL board had approved the allocation of Rs 90 crore accumulated loan to Young Indian in December 2010.

The debt was retired*  for a consideration Rs 50 lakh. The amount was paid by Young Indian to the AICC. (* Debt retirement occurs when a borrower repays the principal associated with a bond or note.) Since AJL was unable to pay the loan, the company and its assets were transferred to YIL. The Rs 50 lakh was converted to equity shares of AJL, thus making it a fully owned subsidiary of Young Indian Limited.

The points of contention in this case are two.

One, how can a political party bound by the provisions of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 loan money at zero interest rate for commercial purposes? The Congress insisted that its loan to AJL did not violate the provisions of the Act as the loan was to revive the newspaper with no commercial interest.

Two, why did the AJL fail to pay off its debts by selling off some of its priced properties?

Now, going by the most conservative estimate AJL owned around Rs 2,000 crore worth of assets. Some of the real estate properties of the AJL worth millions are scattered in Delhi, Mumbai, Patna, Lucknow, Indore, Bhopal and other places across the country. The natural question is why the firm failed to dispose of its debt by liquidating these assets. Why were assets worth crores transferred to YIL for a paltry sum?

Incidentally, Congress leader Motilal Vora, who served as the chairman and managing director of AJL from March 2002, agreed to transfer the company and its assets to YIL as AJL was unable to repay the loan amount from AICC. Vora was also the Congress party's treasurer then.

Another important point is that the consent of the shareholders were not taken before the acquisition of AJL by Young India. 

Also, those who were involved in the decision making were office-bearers of the Congress and majority shareholders in YIL.

Legal proceedings

After considering the above points, a trial court summoned the accused in 2014. While summoning them, the court said that from the complaint and the evidence so far, “it appears that YI was in fact created as a sham or a cloak to convert public money to personal use” in order to acquire control over Rs 2,000 crore worth of assets of AJL.

The court noted that all accused persons had allegedly acted “in consortium with each other to achieve the said nefarious purpose/design”.

Later, the High Court dismissed the appeals filed by the Congress leaders against the summons, observing that prima facie the case “evidenced criminality”.

The ED began a probe into Swamy's complaint in 2014 to see if there was a case of money laundering involved. The case was closed citing technical reasons. However, Swamy wrote to Prime Minister Modi expressing doubts about ED Director Ranjan Katoch. In 2015, Katoch was removed and the case was reopened.

The five accused in the case -- Sonia, Rahul, Motilal Vora, Oscar Fernandes and Suman Dubey -- were granted bail by the Patiala court in December 2015.

In October 2018, the Centre ended a 56-year-old perpetual lease to evict AJL from Herald House citing that it was used for commercial activities and not publishing.

On May 2019, the ED permanently attached National Herald properties worth Rs 64 crore in Gurugram under the PMLA. A Rs 16.38 crore property in Mumbai was also attached in 2020.

In 2022, the agency began questioning the accused in the case as part of the probe.

Though the ED has concluded the questioning of Congress leaders Rahul Gandhi and Sonia Gandhi for the time being, this is just the beginning. A lengthy legal battle is likely to haunt the Congress leaders for a long time.

• National Herald Case
• Sonia Gandhi
• Rahul Gandhi
• Enforcement Directorate

Salman Khan house firing case: Accused dies by suicide in jail

Centre says bomb threat to schools seems to be 'hoax'; cops trace source of email

Several schools in Delhi receive bomb threats; police say nothing found in search

EC publishes voter turnout data; phase 1 records 66.14%, phase 2-66.71%

Delhi HC reserves order on ex-PFI chief E Abubacker’s release plea in UAPA case

Supreme Court questions ED on timing of Kejriwal's arrest ahead LS polls

We kill terrorists by entering their homes: PM Modi

JDS suspends Prajwal Revanna over alleged sex scandal

Patanjali Foods gets show cause notice for GST dues worth Rs 27.4 crore

Subscribe Now! Get features like

• Latest News
• Entertainment
• Real Estate
• CSK vs PBKS Live Score
• CSK vs PBKS Live
• Delhi Schools Bomb News Live
• Lok Sabha Election 2024 Live
• WBBSE Result 2024
• Crick-it: Catch The Game
• Lok Sabha Election 2024
• Election Schedule 2024
• IPL 2024 Schedule
• IPL Points Table
• IPL Purple Cap
• IPL Orange Cap
• The Interview
• Web Stories
• Virat Kohli
• Mumbai News
• Bengaluru News
• Daily Digest

Explainer: The legal history of National Herald Case, charges against Gandhis

While the ed summons for sonia and rahul gandhi have set off an intense war of words between the opposition party and the ruling bjp, the controversy that has its basis in a decade-old tax reassessment needs to be elucidated..

The Enforcement Directorate (ED) has summoned interim Congress president Sonia Gandhi and her parliamentarian son Rahul Gandhi for questioning in a money laundering case linked to the National Herald newspaper.

While Sonia Gandhi has been asked to appear before ED on June 8, Rahul Gandhi was asked to appear on Thursday, according to a summons received on May 30. Congress leaders Randeep Surjewala and Abhishek Singhvi announced on Wednesday afternoon that Sonia will go to the ED office on the scheduled date but indicated that the party would seek time for Rahul after June 5 since he is out of the country.

The controversy surrounding the National Herald newspaper arises out of an Income Tax investigation, initiated following a criminal complaint filed by former BJP MP Subramanian Swamy before Delhi court. The complaint questioned the takeover of Associated Journals Limited (AJL), the erstwhile publisher of National Herald, and its assets by a company called Young Indian (YI) Limited.

While the summons have set off an intense war of words between the opposition party and the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), with the former alleging a political ploy and the latter questioning the role of the Gandhis, the controversy that has its basis in a decade-old tax reassessment needs to be elucidated.

The background

The ED summons are premised on the IT investigations launched against YI over charges of taking over the properties of AJL (National Herald) worth at least R2,000 crore at a paltry sum of R50 lakh. By 2008, the AJL had stopped printing and publishing business and it was primarily into the real estate business of leasing out AJL properties in Delhi, Mumbai, Patna, Panchkula and Lucknow.

YI was incorporated on November 23, 2010 as a non-profit making company under Section 25 of the Companies Act with its stated objective as: “Youth commitment to the ideal of democratic and secular society”.

While Sonia and Rahul held 76% shares in YI, Congress leaders (the late) Motilal Vora and Sam Pitroda, perceived as trusted aides of Nehru-Gandhi family, figured as other directors in YI controlling the remaining shares. The company had just R5 lakh in share capital when it was incorporated.

On December 18, 2010, by a deed of assignment, R90 crore loan standing in Indian National Congress’s books as payable to it from AJL from 2002 to 2011, was transferred to YI.

On December 24, 2010, YI obtained a loan of R1 crore from Kolkata-based M/s Dotex Merchandise Pvt Ltd, which IT suspects to be a laundering of own money of YI which was received so as to eventually buy the properties of AJL through an alleged sham transaction.

Four days later, the formal stamped deed of assignment of R90 crore in favour of YI was executed by AICC by reportedly making a payment of only R50 lakh. This was followed by a general meeting of AJL on November 21, 2011 approving fresh issue of 9.021 crore shares to YI, which accounted for 99% of the share capital of AJL.

YI further obtained on May 9, 2011 the registration under Section 12A of the Act, which entitled it to exemption from its income. In October 2017, the exemption granted to YI under Section 12A was cancelled with retrospective affect.

Many office bearers of the INC, directors of YI and AJL, including the Gandhis, Vora and Pitroda, were the common people involved in the transactions, alleged the IT department. All the events took place less than a month after YI’s incorporation.

The IT proceedings

The inquiry into the allegations were commenced by the IT department in 2015. The summons were first issued to YI and AJL in February 2015, seeking details of the company’s transactions, especially those pertaining to buying the interest free loan from the Congress party. The summons were followed by notices from the additional director (investigation) seeking the details of the transactions with a deadline of July 22, 2015. By a letter dated July 21, 2015, YI replied stating that information could be sought by the IT department only if there were pending proceedings against an assessee.

IT wrote another letter on July 27, 2015 pointing out pendency of the proceedings was not a pre-requisite for seeking information under the pertinent provision of the IT Act, adding there was a SC ruling in 2013 clearly holding that information could be sought pursuant to any inquiry. YI and AJL were then asked to furnish information by July 31, 2015.

YI responded on July 27, 2015 reiterating its previous stand that no proceedings are pending against them. Through another letter dated July 31, 2015, YI demanded to see the letter of approval by the Commissioner of Income Tax (CIT) for initiating an inquiry. The department wrote back saying that prior approval of the CIT concerned was duly served upon by the IT officer on July 14, 2015 and then the inquiry began.

In August 10, 2015, YI wrote to IT seeking complete inspection of the file and sought copies of the relevant records regarding the approval to begin the inquiry.

Finally, on January 10, 2017, the IT department issued notices to YI, the Gandhis and other directors of the company under Section 148 of the IT Act, claiming it has reasons to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. The notices sought to reassess YI’s income for the financial year 2010-11, when most of the transactions relating to incorporation of the company, its loan from the Kolkata-based firm and the assignment of loan from Congress to YI took place.

The modus operandi as per the IT department

The I-T notice of 2010, reviewed by HT, alleged that there were eight steps that constituted “the scheme to take over immovable properties of AJL without paying any taxes on benefits accrued to YI and its majority shareholders”:

1) Registered office of AJL was shifted from Lucknow to Delhi and a new company YI was incorporated by some important persons such as Sonia, Rahul and the late Oscar Fernandes and Vora, who were connected with AICC as well as AJL.

2) YI had no assets of its own except those transferred by AICC as loan of R90.21 crore, which was camouflaged as sale of loan for a consideration of R50 lakh. The amount was fixed at R90.21 crore in order to ensure that the amount is just sufficient to allot 99 per cent of share of AJL to YI. R1 crore was suspiciously obtained as a loan from a dubious company.

3) YI did not carry out any activity consonant with its stated objective but took over real estate business of AJL to its benefit.

4) Alleged sale of loan of R90.21 crore by AICC to YI have not been proved through documents because assignment of loan was not acknowledged and confirmed by AJL.

5) Takeover of AJL was complete within 3 months from the date of incorporation of YI, which subsequently shifted to Herald House in Delhi, one of the prime properties of AJL without paying any compensation for use of space.

6) YI obtained registration under Section 12A of the Act, which entitled it to exemption on its income on May 9, 2011 so that value of all benefits from real estate business of AJL get tax exemption.

7) In order to hold 100 per cent shares of AJL by YI, Priyanka Gandhi Vadra also purchased additional shares through Rattan Deep Trust and Janhit Nidhi Trust.

8) YI concealed purchase of loan of R90 crore for R50 lakh in its Profit and Loss Account and the same was camouflaged as expenditure on object of YI. It was not disclosed on the ground of being an insignificant investment whereas the reason was to hide real transaction.

“The takeover of AJL by YI has resulted in the acquisition of all the immovable properties of AJL along with the right to enjoy a huge rental income of several crores from some of the properties. Since more than 75 percent shares of YI are held by Sonia Gandhi and Rahul Gandhi, they were the real beneficiary of the transaction,” stated the I-T notice.

Role of Priyanka Gandhi

The January 2010 notice also alleged complicity of Priyanka Gandhi in the case. The notice claims that Priyanka played a crucial role in ensuring that YI, which has Sonia and Rahul as its majority shareholders, comes in control of 100% shares of the company.

The IT notice claimed: “In order to achieve the object of taking over 100 percent shares of AJL by YI, Sonia, Rahul and Priyanka Gandhi Vadhera also purchased additional 47,513 and 26,244 shares of AJL through Rattan Deep Trust and Janhit Nidhi Trust respectively.”

The court battles and the Gandhis’ defence

Subramanian Swamy, in 2012, filed the complaint before a Delhi court alleging the Gandhis and other Congress leaders were involved in cheating and breach of trust in the acquisition of AJL by YI, which was completed in March 2011. Swami alleged that YI had taken over the assets of the National Herald in a “malicious” way, breaching various legal provisions and attracting the penal charges of cheating and criminal breach of trust.

While the criminal prosecution against the Gandhis began in June 2014 with the Delhi court issuing summons to them along with other YI directors, Swamy’s complaint also became the basis for the IT department to commence its inquiry in 2015.

The criminal case : Stating that Swamy’s complaint established a prima facie case of cheating, misappropriation of funds and criminal breach of trust against the accused, the Delhi court in June 2014 demanded appearance of the Gandhis and five others, including Vora, Fernandes, Pitroda and Dubey.

“From the complaint and the evidence led so far, it appears that YI was in fact created as a sham or a cloak to convert public money to personal use or as a special purpose vehicle for acquiring control over ₹ 2000 crore worth of assets of the AJL...Since all the accused have allegedly acted in consortium with each other to achieve the said nefarious design, there are sufficient grounds for proceeding against all of them,” the Delhi court said in its 2014 order.

Gandhis moved the Delhi high court against the summons but to no avail. Observing that the conduct of Congress office-bearers named in the National Herald case “smacks of criminality”, the Delhi high court dismissed their appeals.

The high court, in its judgment, noted that YI was a special purpose vehicle created by the Congress leaders and the “questionable conduct of the petitioners needs to be properly examined… to find out the truth”. It questioned the need for shifting the interest-free loan of R90.25 crore extended to AJL to YI for R50 lakh. The court observed that the modus operandi depicted “criminal intent”.

After the Delhi high court order, Gandhis and other Congress leaders appeared before the Delhi trial court on December 19, 2015 and obtained bail.

In the first week of February 2016, Gandhis moved the Supreme Court against the high court’s judgment. They denied the allegations of cheating and criminal breach of trust, and claimed that they have neither appropriated nor converted any property for their own use or benefit. Sonia and Rahul said they were only the shareholders of the properties that belonged to AJL and thus, cannot be treated as owners.

The petitions added that the charge of criminal breach of trust can be invoked only when there is entrustment of property and when the person who has entrusted the property continues to have control over such property. According to their petitions, Gandhis were never entrusted AJL properties and held no control over them.

“Giving of loans to AJL by the Congress party is an action which is in consonance with the objectives of the party...There is no restriction in constitution of the party for giving such loans,” stated Sonia’s petition in the top court,” said the petitions, justifying the grant of R90 crore loan to AJL by the political party.

Questioning the locus standi of Swamy, the Gandhis contended that the complaint in the case was filed with the objective of defaming them. The two added they have deep roots in society and were at the helm of national politics for years. If the complaint and summons were not quashed, it would cause irreparable damage to their reputation, said the Gandhis.

But there was no reprieve in store for the Gandhis before the top court. On February 12, 2016, the Supreme Court asked them to face the trial, holding the court finds “no justification” in quashing their criminal prosecution.

At the same time, the apex court clarified that certain “firm conclusions” recorded by the high court in its December 2015 judgment regarding the conduct and criminality of the accused be expunged. On a request from the Congress leaders, the Supreme Court allowed a plea for their exemption from personal appearance before the magistrate on future dates, but clarified that they can be summoned by the trial court as and when required.

This case before the trial court is currently in abeyance after Swamy sought to adduce certain additional evidence. After the BJP leader’s plea was rejected by the trial court, he moved the Delhi high court, which on February 22, 2021 stayed further proceedings.

The tax case : The IT notice of January 2017 was challenged by YI before the Delhi high court, complaining that the notice was issued to reopen assessment of six years despite no pending income tax proceedings. The writ petition before the high court contended that that the IT department has no jurisdiction to reopen proceedings. YI asked for staying the IT proceedings and quashing the reassessment notices.

But in May 2017, the high court refused to entertain YI’s petition and asked it to approach the IT assessing officer. The court noted that the company has not even approached the assessing officer, adding it should submit all relevant documents before the IT department. YI withdrew its petition from the high court with the liberty to approach it at an appropriate stage.

In 2018, the Gandhis approached the high court again in the wake of the reassessment notices issues to them. The two sought annulments of the IT proceedings, claiming no income escaped assessment and that all queries were addressed adequately in the scrutiny assessment. They further argued that the reassessment was initiated on factually incorrect premise and that the proceedings have been initiated with a premeditated mindset and a mala fide intention.

But the high court, by an order in September 2018, dismissed Gandhis’ petition, pointing out that they had failed in disclosing the allotment of YI’s shares to them for the relevant assessment period. “At least disclosure of this was warranted, whatever the explanations with respect to liability or otherwise of the assessees might have been,” held the high court, finding justification in the reassessment proceedings.

This order was again challenged by the Gandhis before the Supreme Court, which took up the case on December 4, 2018. On that day, the top court allowed the IT department to go ahead with the estimation of incomes for Gandhis for the assessment year 2011-12 and even pass the final order but restrained it from enforcing the assessment order.

Subsequently, the assessment orders were passed and demand notices were served upon the Gandhis but the orders were not implemented owing to the Supreme Court’s restraint. The case is presently pending before the Supreme Court.

Continue reading with HT Premium Subscription

• Ht Exclusive
• National Herald
• Sonia Gandhi
• Rahul Gandhi

Join Hindustan Times

Create free account and unlock exciting features like.

• Terms of use
• Privacy policy
• Weather Today
• HT Newsletters
• Subscription
• Print Ad Rates
• Code of Ethics

• IPL Match Today
• T20 World Cup 2024 Schedule
• IPL Live Score
• IPL 2024 Auctions
• T20 World Cup 2024
• Cricket Teams
• Cricket Players
• ICC Rankings
• Cricket Schedule
• Other Cities
• Income Tax Calculator
• Budget 2024
• Petrol Prices
• Diesel Prices
• Silver Rate
• Relationships
• Art and Culture
• Taylor Swift: A Primer
• Telugu Cinema
• Tamil Cinema
• Board Exams
• Exam Results
• Competitive Exams
• BBA Colleges
• Engineering Colleges
• Medical Colleges
• BCA Colleges
• Medical Exams
• Engineering Exams
• Horoscope 2024
• Festive Calendar 2024
• Compatibility Calculator
• The Economist Articles
• Lok Sabha States
• Lok Sabha Parties
• Lok Sabha Candidates
• Explainer Video
• On The Record
• Vikram Chandra Daily Wrap
• EPL 2023-24
• ISL 2023-24
• Asian Games 2023
• Public Health
• Economic Policy
• International Affairs
• Climate Change
• Gender Equality
• future tech
• Daily Sudoku
• Daily Crossword
• Daily Word Jumble
• HT Friday Finance
• Explore Hindustan Times
• Privacy Policy
• Terms of Use
• Subscription - Terms of Use

• International
• Today’s Paper
• Premium Stories
• Express Shorts
• Health & Wellness
• Board Exam Results

Explained: What are the ED and IT cases against Rahul and Sonia Gandhi?

The ed case is based on a trial court order that allowed the income tax department to probe the affairs of national herald newspaper and conduct a tax assessment of sonia and rahul. here's the full story..

After Rahul Gandhi, Congress president Sonia Gandhi appeared before the Enforcement Directorate (ED), on Thursday (July 21), for questioning in connection with a money laundering case related to the National Herald newspaper.

What is the case in which the two Congress leaders are being questioned?

What is the case?

The ED case is based on a trial court order that allowed the Income Tax Department to probe the affairs of National Herald newspaper and conduct a tax assessment of Sonia and Rahul. The order was the result of a petition filed by BJP MP Subramanian Swamy in 2013.

Swamy’s complaint had alleged cheating and misappropriation of funds on the part of the Gandhis in acquiring the newspaper. Swami had alleged that the Gandhis acquired properties owned by National Herald by buying the newspaper’s erstwhile publishers, The Associated Journals Limited (AJL), through an organisation called Young Indian (YI) in which they have 86 per cent stake.

Sonia and Rahul were granted bail in the case by the trial court on December 19, 2015.

In Swamy’s complaint before the trial court, Sonia, Rahul and others have been accused of misappropriating funds by paying Rs 50 lakh through YI to obtain the right to recover Rs 90.25 crore that AJL owed to the Congress.

What happened with National Herald?

Jawaharlal Nehru established The National Herald in 1938. It was published by AJL, a Section 25 company, which is generally a not-for-profit entity. AJL also published the Qaumi Awaz in Urdu, and Navjeevan in Hindi.

The company owns prime real estate in various cities including Delhi , Mumbai , Lucknow , Patna, and Panchkula . Plagued by overstaffing and a lack of revenue, AJL ran into losses and stopped publishing in April 2008.

After the publication of the newspaper was suspended, the income of AJL came mainly from exploitation of various properties held by it. One of its key properties was situated at 5A Herald House, Bahadurshah Zafar Marg, New Delhi.

Meanwhile, the All India Congress Committee (AICC), which is the apex body of Indian National Congress , gave the company unsecured, interest-free loans for a few years up to 2010.

What happened thereafter?

By the end of 2010, AJL’s unsecured debt had risen to Rs 90.21 crore. Despite owning real estate that is said to be valued much higher than the quantum of its debt, the management of AJL appears to have made no effort to repay the AICC. According to investigations by the Income Tax Department, the properties owned by AJL had a fair market value (FMV) of over Rs 413 crore.

On November 23, 2010, a company called Young Indian Pvt Ltd was incorporated as a Section 25 company, with Gandhi family loyalists Suman Dubey and Satyan Gangaram (Sam) Pitroda as directors. The object of the company was stated to be: “To inculcate in the mind of India’s youth commitment to the ideal of a democratic and secular society…”

However, immediately after its incorporation, both the Directors transferred their shares to Congress leaders Oscar Fernandes, Sonia Gandhi, Rahul Gandhi and Moti Lal Vora (now deceased). Later, on December 13, 2010, Rahul Gandhi was appointed as Director of Young Indian and, on January 22, 2011, Sonia Gandhi joined the board as a Director.

As of March 2017, Sonia Gandhi and Rahul Gandhi had shareholdings of 38% each in the company. Vora and Fernandes held the remaining 24% in equal parts.

YI then registered itself under Section 12A of the Income Tax Act as a charitable organisation, making it eligible for 100% tax exemption.

What was the AJL-YI-AICC deal?

After the formation of YI, the AICC decided to assign AJL’s nearly Rs 90 crore debt to the newly formed organisation. Young Indian paid just Rs 50 lakh for this acquisition.

The loan assigned to YI was converted into shares of AJL, and AJL allotted 9,02,16,899 equity shares to Young Indian in lieu of the aforesaid loan amount. In this manner, almost 99.99% shares of AJL were transferred to Young Indian.

The IT Department has alleged that in order to achieve the objective of holding 100 per cent share of AJL by YI’s majority shareholders, Rahul Gandhi and Priyanka Gandhi Vadra have purchased an additional 47,513 and 2,62,411 shares through Rattan Deep Trust and Janhit Nidhi Trust respectively.

• Covishield could cause blood clots in very rare cases: What does this mean?
• Elon Musk visits China: Why rolling out Full Self-Driving cars matters for Tesla
• How Indira Gandhi returned to power in 1971 Lok Sabha polls

Interestingly, at the time of AJL’s acquisition, Young Indian, incorporated with a paid up capital of Rs 5 lakh, did not have even the Rs 50 lakh funds to acquire AJL. It thus decided to take a loan of Rs 1 crore from M/s Dotex Merchandise Pvt. Ltd, Kolkata . Dotex, alleged by the Income Tax Department to be a company that allowed accommodation entries for a commission, is now owned by the RPG Group.

This loan of Rs 1 crore was also flagged as “suspicious transaction” by the Financial Intelligence Unit of the Finance Ministry.

Notably, AICC transferred its loan to YI on December 28, 2010, more than two months before YI made any payment to AICC. In fact, at that time YI did not even have a bank account. The IT probe has found that YI started its office at AJL-owned Herald House in 2010 itself, without any agreement to that effect or any payment of rent to AJL.

The IT Department has even raised doubts about the purported loan forwarded by the Congress to AJL saying there is no evidence of it except in the books of AJL. “The amount of loan entry of Rs 90.21 crore was fixed in order to ensure that the amount was just sufficient to allot 99% share of AJL to the Appellant (YI),” the IT submission to the IT Appellate Tribunal said.

What were the questions around the deal?

The AICC transferred all its loan to YI for just Rs 50 lakh, claiming that it was not sure if AJL would be in position to return the loan. The IT probe has held that AJL had properties worth hundreds of crores, and thus it was actually in a very good position to return the loan.

• Prajwal Revanna case: BJP says 'no authority over ally', asks what did state Congress govt do
• Jagan names 12 ‘common voters’ among YSRCP’s ‘star campaigners’: Homemakers to farmers, auto driver to tailor
• Jailed Engineer Rashid stirs up Baramulla fray, may dent Sajad Lone base, give Omar a leg-up

Also, in the Notes to Accounts for the financial year 2010-11 of AJL, it was mentioned that the management was confident of a turnaround for the company. Since the same people were office bearers of both AICC and AJL, it was strange for the former to assume that its loan could not be recovered.

Other key questions raised were of conflict of interest, with Vora holding positions in all the three entities involved — AICC treasurer (formerly), AJL CMD, and shareholder and director at Young Indian. Also, The Representation of the People Act, 1950, does not allow a political party to give a loan.

What is the status of the IT case now?

The IT Department had earlier issued a notice to Rahul for allegedly concealing information on his status as a Director of Young Indian. It has said that Rahul’s shares in Young Indian resulted in an income of Rs 154 crore, whereas earlier only Rs 68 lakh was assessed. It issued similar notices to Sonia and Fernandes, even as it sought to reopen the assessment to compute the “fair market value” of these shares.

Rahul, Sonia and Fernandes challenged this, contending that no income had escaped assessment, and that they had disclosed all facts. One key argument against the reassessment was that YI, as a Section 25 company, had applied for exemption under Section 12A of the Income Tax Act, which was granted on May 9, 2011.

However, CIT(E) cancelled the registration granted to YI u/s 12A on October 26, 2017 on the ground that no genuine activities were carried out by YI either in furtherance of its objects or otherwise, which can be held to be charitable. The cancellation was upheld by the IT Tribunal. A March 31, 2022 order of the IT Appellate Tribunal asked the IT Department to make further inquiries into the matter, even as it struck down some tax demands by the department on YI.

What is the Congress’s defence?

The Congress has accused the BJP government of cheap vendetta politics to divert attention from issues like inflation , GDP, social unrest, and social divisiveness in the country. The party said the case of money laundering was “weird”, and the charges were “hollow…more hollow than a pack of cards”.

Congress leader Abhishek Manu Singhvi has said that AJL had come under financial stress over the decades, after which the Congress stepped in, and over a period of time gave Rs 90-odd crore as financial support to it.

According to Singhvi, AJL did what any company under debt would do, i.e., to convert its debt into equity which was eventually acquired by Young Indian. He said since Young Indian is a non-profit organisation, “by law…no dividend can be given to its shareholders or directors… So you cannot take a penny.”

Singhvi said AJL continues to hold all the properties it was holding earlier, and that the only change was that Young Indian was now the shareholder of AJL.

“So there is no transfer of property. So where is the money laundering?” he said.

Heatwaves in many parts of India: Why has April been Subscriber Only

Prajwal Revanna 'sex abuse' allegations — how the case unfolded Subscriber Only

How Indira Gandhi returned to power in 1971 Lok Sabha Subscriber Only

How Sidhu Moosewala's parents are bringing up Baby Moosewala Subscriber Only

UPSC Key | 30th April, 2024 — International Criminal Court, Subscriber Only

Who wants 370 majority? Not even BJP leaders Subscriber Only

To ensure a hunger-free nation, protect soil Subscriber Only

Is that health drink behind your child being overweight? Subscriber Only

Cannibal stereotype: Why Biden’s comments offended Papua New Guinea Subscriber Only

• Express Premium
• Rahul Gandhi
• Sonia Gandhi

Two Delhi schools, Mother Mary School and Delhi Public School, received bomb threats via email on Wednesday morning. The school premises were evacuated and local police, along with bomb detection and disposal teams, are conducting a search operation. The safety of students and staff is being ensured by the authorities.

More Explained

Best of Express

EXPRESS OPINION

May 01: Latest News

• 01 2 Indian spies expelled from Australia for trying to ‘steal secrets’ in 2020: Australian media
• 02 IPL 2024 points table update: Lucknow pip Chennai for the third spot, Mumbai remain ninth
• 03 Maharashtra poll snippets: Where is Nana Patole?
• 04 Patidar stir: Surat court acquits 3 youths accused of assaulting cops
• 05 US poised to ease restrictions on marijuana in historic shift, but it’ll remain controlled substance
• Elections 2024
• Political Pulse
• Entertainment
• Movie Review
• Newsletters
• Gold Rate Today
• Silver Rate Today
• Petrol Rate Today
• Diesel Rate Today
• Web Stories

You are using an outdated browser. Please upgrade your browser to improve your experience and security.

• Moneycontrol Trending Stock
• Infosys  INE009A01021, INFY, 500209
• State Bank of India  INE062A01020, SBIN, 500112
• Yes Bank  INE528G01027, YESBANK, 532648
• Bank Nifty 
• Nifty 500  
• Mutual Funds
• Commodities
• Futures & Options
• Cryptocurrency
• My Portfolio
• My Watchlist
• FREE Credit Score ₹100 Cash Reward
• My Messages
• Price Alerts
• Chat with Us
• Download App

Follow us on:

Explained: The National Herald case and involvement of Gandhi family

The case dates back to 2012 when a first complaint was filed by bjp leader subramanian swamy in a trial court alleging financial irregularities by sonia gandhi, rahul gandhi, and others, during the acquisition of associated journals limited (ajl) – the publisher of national herald newspaper – by the gandhi family-owned young indian pvt ltd (yil) in 2010.

Sonia Gandhi and Rahul Gandhi

Congress workers were detained on June 13 ahead of their march to protest the Enforcement Directorate (ED) summons to party's interim president Sonia Gandhi and her son Rahul Gandhi in the National Herald newspaper case

The probe agency had earlier this month issued fresh summons to record the two Congress leaders’ statements under criminal sections of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) in the case, the officials said.

Read: Congress says govt scared of Rahul Gandhi, 'undeclared emergency' in Delhi

Congress workers stage protest holding placards in support of party leader Rahul Gandhi ahead of his appearance before ED today in the National Herald case. Visuals from outside AICC headquarters, Delhi pic.twitter.com/jJrzCsRzYx window._taboola = window._taboola || []; _taboola.push({ mode: 'thumbnails-mid-article', container: 'taboola-mid-article-thumbnails', placement: 'Mid Article Thumbnails', target_type: 'mix' }); Related stories T20 World Cup 2024: India schedule and squad, India-Pak match timing India successfully tests 'SMART' anti-submarine missile system Developing e-commerce hubs to boost exports may figure in ministry's 100-day agenda of new govt: Off... — ANI (@ANI) June 13, 2022

On June 12, the Congress announced a protest march on Jun 13 to ED office but Delhi Police refused  the permission citing the "communal and law and order situation" and VVIP movements.

"No one can oppress us, neither could the English nor can these new oppressors. We will march till the ED's office, we will choose Gandhi's path, we will fight for the rights of the poor. The Congress is the voice of the common man for 136 years," Congress leader Randeep Singh Surjewala said in a press conference on June 13.

The case dates back to 2012, when a complaint was filed by BJP leader Subramanian Swamy in a trial court alleging financial irregularities by Sonia Gandhi, Rahul Gandhi and others during the acquisition of Associated Journals Limited (AJL) — publisher of the National Herald newspaper — by the Gandhi family-owned Young Indian Pvt Limited (YIL) in 2010. Swamy also informed about the notice in social media.

Here is a primer on the case and the Gandhi family’s alleged involvement in it :

What is the National Herald?

The National Herald newspaper was founded by Jawaharlal Nehru in 1938 in Lucknow as part of the independence movement against the British. The newspaper, published by Associated Journals Limited (AJL), became a mouthpiece of the Congress party after Independence. AJL also published two other newspapers, Navjeevan in Hindi and Qaumi Awaz in Urdu.

What is Associated Journals Limited (AJL)? 

Associated Journals Limited (AJL), which published the National Herald and other two newspapers, was founded in 1937 with at least 5,000 freedom fighters, including Nehru, as its shareholders. In 2010, the number of AJL shareholders had reduced to 1,057.

AJL’s registered office was in ITO, New Delhi. The company published the National Herald newspaper in English, Qaumi Awaz in Urdu and Navjeevan in Hindi till 2008, when it was shut after racking up debt of over Rs 90 crore, according to a report in Business Standard.

Also read |   ED examines Congress leader Mallikarjun Kharge in National Herald case

On January 21, 2016, AJL decided to relaunch the three newspapers.

What is Young Indian Pvt Ltd?

Young Indian Pvt Ltd (YIL) is a private company that was set up in November 2010. Rahul Gandhi, then a general secretary of the Congress party, was director of the company. While Rahul Gandhi and his mother Sonia Gandhi hold 76 per cent of the company's shares, the remaining 24 per cent was in the names of late Congress leaders Motilal Vora and Oscar Fernandes.

How is the Congress involved?

When the National Herald suspended operations in 2008 due to heavy losses, it is estimated that the newspaper had properties worth Rs 2,000 Crore in Delhi, Lucknow and Mumbai.

In his private complaint before a trial court in 2012, BJP leader Subramanian Swamy alleged that Congress leaders were involved in cheating and breach of trust in the acquisition of AJL by YIL, as assets worth crores of rupees had been transferred to YIL. He alleged that YIL took over the assets of National Herald, the defunct print media outlet, in a malicious manner to gain profit and assets worth Rs 2,000 crore. Under the Income Tax Act, no political outfit can have financial transactions with a third party.

In the revival plan for the newspaper, the Congress extended a Rs 90.2 crore interest-free loan from the party fund. Swamy alleged that in 2010, YIL had paid just Rs 50 lakh to obtain the rights to recover the Rs 90.2 crore AJL owed the Congress party. The BJP leader also alleged that the loan given to AJL was illegal since it was taken from party funds.

Also read |   Hardik Patel to switch parties | Why Congress's loss is BJP's gain in poll-bound Gujarat

Some AJL shareholders, including former law minister Shanti Bhushan and former Allahabad High Court Chief Justice Markanday Katju, said, according to reports, that their shares in AJL were transferred to YIL without their knowledge.

The I-T department had claimed that the shares owned by Rahul Gandhi in YIL would lead him to have an income of Rs 154 crore and not about Rs 68 lakh, as was assessed earlier, according to a report in The Indian Express . The department has already issued a demand notice for Rs 249.15 crore to YIL for the assessment year 2011-12, the report said.

Who are the accused in the case?

Late Congress leaders Motilal Vora and Oscar Fernandes, journalist Suman Dubey and technocrat Sam Pitroda were also named in the case, apart from Sonia and Rahul Gandhi.  Former Haryana chief minister Bhupinder Singh Hooda is also an accused in the money laundering case registered by the ED in the National Herald case.

What have the courts said so far? 

In 2014, Metropolitan Magistrate Gomati Manocha summoned all the accused, including the Gandhis, in the case. The court said that from the complaint and the evidence so far it appeared that YIL was created as a “sham or a cloak” to convert public money for personal use, according to reports.

The court said that the complainant had established a prima facie case against the accused under Section 403 (Dishonest Misappropriation of Property), Section 406 (Criminal Breach of Trust) and Section 420 (Cheating) read with Section 120B (Criminal Conspiracy) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

Also read |   Explained: ED arrests Delhi minister Satyendar Jain in hawala case: 5 key points on PMLA Act

The court, however, noted that this was only “the stage of summoning” and the accused had the right to refute the allegations and defend themselves. In August 2014, the Delhi High Court stayed the summons.

In February 2016, the Supreme Court directed Sonia Gandhi, Rahul Gandhi and the other accused to face criminal proceedings in the case. However, the top court exempted the Gandhis from appearing in court personally as they were “prominent persons” and not a flight risk.

What has the ED probe revealed?

The Enforcement Directorate   launched its probe in  August 2014 to find out if there was any money laundering. The case was closed by ED in January 2015 citing technical reasons . Swamy wrote to Prime Minister Narendra Modi casting aspersions on ED Director Rajan Kotoch. In August 2015, Katoch was removed and ED reopened the case in September 2015.

In December 2015, the Patiala house court granted bail to Sonia and Rahul Gandhi in the case. In 2019, the ED attached National Herald properties worth Rs 16.38 crore in Mumbai.

The ED had also initiated a money laundering probe against AJL in 2018 in connection with a plot allotted to it in Haryana’s Panchkula by then chief minister and Congress leader Bhupinder Singh Hooda.

At present, the probe agency is investigating the shareholding pattern, financial transactions and role of the promoters YIL and AJL. The agency has also registered a fresh case under the criminal provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act after a trial court took cognisance of an Income Tax Department probe against YIL on the basis of Swamy's complaint.

Delhi | 'Satya ka Sangram' will continue under the leadership of Rahul Gandhi. Even the British could not suppress the voice of Congress during the freedom struggle, then how can this ruling govt?: Congress leader Randeep Singh Surjewala pic.twitter.com/tvOrv6HDoF — ANI (@ANI) June 13, 2022

The probe agency recently questioned senior Congress leaders Mallikarjun Kharge and Pawan Bansal as part of the investigation. In a fresh development, the ED has now issued summons to Sonia Gandhi and Rahul Gandhi.

What is the Congress party’s response?

The Congress party has been claiming that YIL was created with the aim of being a charity and not for any profit. The Opposition party hit out at the BJP-led Central government, accusing it of indulging in cheap vendetta politics to divert attention from issues such as inflation, falling GDP growth and the social divisions in the country today.

Also read |  Manish Sisodia will soon be arrested in 'fake' case: Delhi CM Arvind Kejriwal

“This is a strange case of money laundering, where no money is involved… We are not intimidated. This reeks of vendetta, pettiness, fear and cheap politics,” Congress MP and senior lawyer Abhishek Manu Singhvi told reporters on June 1.

Discover the latest business news , Sensex , and Nifty updates. Obtain Personal Finance insights, tax queries, and expert opinions on Moneycontrol or download the Moneycontrol App to stay updated!

Trending news

• Jensen Huang says bosses must be demanding: 'If you want to do extraordinary things...'
• Chinese professor suspended for making students run errands, clean her house & help daughter cheat in exams
• Japanese rice cakes, shaped with sweat in women's armpits, are selling at 10x prices
• Office peacocking: What is it and why it's trending

You got 30 Day’s Trial of

• Ad-Free Experience

• Actionable Insights
• MC Research
• Economic Calendar

You are already a Moneycontrol Pro user.

Access your Detailed Credit Report - absolutely free

• India Today
• Business Today
• Reader’s Digest
• Harper's Bazaar
• Brides Today
• Cosmopolitan
• Aaj Tak Campus
• India Today Hindi

Assets worth Rs 752 crore seized in probe against Congress-linked companies

Probe agency enforcement directorate seized assets worth rs 751.9 crore in an investigation against congress-linked companies associated journals limited, and young indian..

Listen to Story

Probe agency Enforcement Directorate seized assets worth Rs 751.9 crore in an investigation against Congress-linked entities Associated Journals Limited, and Young Indian in connection with a money laundering case.

The ED started the money-laundering investigation based on a court order following a complaint in 2014.

A Delhi court concluded that seven accused persons, including Young India, committed offenses like criminal breach of trust, cheating, dishonest misappropriation of property, and criminal conspiracy.

ACCUSATIONS AGAINST AJL, YOUNG INDIAN

AJL had to repay a loan of Rs 90.21 crore to the All India Congress Committee (AICC).

However, AICC treated the said loan of Rs 90.21 crore as non-recoverable from AJL and sold it for Rs 50 lakh to a newly incorporated company, Young Indian, without any source of income to pay even Rs 50 lakh.

By their action, the shareholders of AJL as well as donors of Congress were cheated by the office bearers of AJL and Congress, the court had said.

According to the ED's investigation, after purchasing the loan of Rs 90.21 crore from AICC, Young Indian demanded either repayment of the loan or allotment of equity shares of AJL to it.

AJL held an Extraordinary General Meeting (EGM) and passed a resolution to increase share capital and issue fresh shares worth Rs.90.21 crore to YI.

CONGRESS REACTS

Congress leader Abhishek Singhvi reacted to the ED's action in the case, calling it a "distraction created by the ruling BJP to divert attention from their defeat in the upcoming state elections".

He said that action under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) can only be taken in the presence of "definite indications of an offense". Singhvi claimed that in this case, there was no transfer of any immovable property and no income was generated from the alleged crime.

WHAT IS THE NATIONAL HERALD CASE?

At the heart of the case is the acquisition of Associated Journals Ltd (AJL) by Young India Ltd (YIL).

AJL was established by freedom fighters in 1937 and had been publishing the National Herald newspaper, along with its Urdu and Hindi editions, Qaumi Awaz and Navjeevan, respectively.

On April 2, 2008, AJL suspended publication of the newspapers. By the end of 2010, AJL owed Rs 90.21 crores to the Congress in loans.

On November 23, 2010, a new company named Young Indian was registered by two directors, with the two partners, Suman Dubey and Satyan Gangaram Pitroda (Sam Pitroda). It was incorporated as a non-profit company under Section 25 of the Companies Act.

Next month, on December 13, 2010, Rahul Gandhi was also appointed the director of the company. A few days later, the All India Congress Committee (AICC) agreed to transfer all of the AJL loans to the newly incorporated Young Indian.

In January 2011, Sonia Gandhi assumed the directorship of Young Indian; by this time, Sonia and Rahul Gandhi each controlled 36 per cent of Young India shares.

Next month, Young Indian borrowed Rs 1 crore loan from a Kolkata-based RPG group owned company Dotex Merchandise Private Limited.

In the next few days, AJL’s entire shareholding was transferred to the Young Indian in lieu of the transfer of Rs 90 crore AJL loan to YI. On March 1, 2011, YI paid Rs 50 lakhs to Congress for the loan assignment.

Congress Setback In National Herald Case: Rs 752 Crore Asset Seizure Upheld

The authority said in its order that it believes that the movable assets and equity shares that were attached by the ED are proceeds of crime and linked to the offence of money laundering.

National Herald is published by AJL and owned by Young Indian Private Limited (Representational)

The PMLA Adjudicating Authority on Wednesday paved the way for the Enforcement Directorate to take possession of about Rs 752-crore worth assets of Congress party-promoted National Herald newspaper as it upheld a freezing order issued for these properties last year.

The agency can now take possession of these assets like the Herald House at ITO in Delhi, land and building in Mumbai, Lucknow and some other locations.

The final confiscation of these assets can be done once the trial court rules in favour of the prosecution (ED).

The central agency had attached these properties in November last year by issuing a provisional attachment order under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) against Associated Journals Ltd. ( AJL) and Young Indian (YI).

The National Herald is published by AJL and owned by Young Indian Private Limited. Congress leaders Sonia Gandhi and Rahul Gandhi are majority shareholders of Young Indian with 38 per cent shares held by each one of them.

The Congress had then called the agency action as "petty vendetta tactics" and dubbed the ED a "coalition partner" of the BJP.

The agency had alleged in a statement that in this case the shareholders and donors of the Congress were "cheated" by the office-bearers of AJL and the party.

In the statement, the ED had said it has issued an order to provisionally attach properties worth Rs 751.9 crore.

"Investigation revealed that Associated Journals Ltd. (AJL) is in possession of proceeds of crime in the form of immovable properties spread across many cities of India such as Delhi, Mumbai and Lucknow to the tune of Rs. 661.69 crore and Young Indian (YI) is in possession of proceeds of crime to the tune of Rs. 90.21 crore in the form of investment in equity shares of AJL," it said.

The Gandhis, Congress president Mallikarjun Kharge and party leaders Pawan Bansal, D K Shivakumar (Karnataka deputy chief minister) and his MP-brother D K Suresh were questioned and their statements were recorded by the agency in connection with the case.

The money laundering case stems from a court order -- Metropolitan Magistrate of Delhi -- that took cognisance of a private complaint against alleged irregularities in the National Herald's affairs on June 26, 2014.

The court had held that seven accused persons and entities, including Young Indian, "prima facie" committed offences of criminal breach of trust under various sections of the IPC, including cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property, dishonest misappropriation of property and criminal conspiracy, the ED said.

"The accused persons hatched a criminal conspiracy to acquire properties worth hundreds of crores of AJL through a special purpose vehicle-- Young Indian. AJL was given land on concessional rates in various cities of India for the purpose of publishing newspapers," the agency said.

It added that AJL closed its publishing operations in 2008 and started "using" the properties for commercial purposes, it alleged.

It said the AJL had to repay a loan of Rs 90.21 crore to the All India Congress Committee (AICC), however, the AICC treated the said loan of Rs 90.21 crore as non-recoverable from AJL and sold it for Rs 50 lakh to a newly incorporated company Young Indian "without" any source of income to pay even Rs 50 lakh.

"By their action, the shareholders of AJL as well as donors of Congress Party were cheated by the office bearers of AJL and Congress Party," the agency claimed.

After purchasing the loan of Rs 90.21 crore from AICC, Young Indian demanded either re-payment of loan or allotment of equity shares of AJL to it, the ED said.

AJL, it added, held an Extraordinary General Meeting (EGM) and passed a resolution to increase share capital and issue fresh shares worth Rs 90.21 crore to YI.

Promoted Listen to the latest songs, only on JioSaavn.com

"With this fresh allotment of shares, shareholding of more than 1,000 shareholders was reduced to a mere 1 per cent and AJL became a subsidiary company of YI. YI also took control over properties of AJL," the agency said.   

(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)

Track Budget 2023 and get Latest News Live on NDTV.com.

Track Latest News Live on NDTV.com and get news updates from India and around the world .

India Elections | Read Latest News on Lok Sabha Elections 2024 Live on NDTV.com . Get Election Schedule , information on candidates, in-depth ground reports and more - #ElectionsWithNDTV

Watch Live News:

ETV Bharat   /   bharat

Explained: What is National Herald case and why were Gandhis summoned?

Published : Jun 14, 2022, 12:13 PM IST

Updated : Jun 14, 2022, 3:23 PM IST

Swamy alleged that Congress President Sonia Gandhi and Rahul Gandhi “wrongfully” acquired AJL after settling the Rs 90 crore of its liabilities through a “fake company” called Young India Company, which was formed on February 26, 2011 at a cost of Rs 50 lakh. Sonia and Rahul hold 38-38 per cent stake in Young India Company while the late Congress leaders Motilal Vora and Oscar Fernandez held the remaining 24 per cent.

New Delhi: The Enforcement Directorate on Monday questioned former Congress President Rahul Gandhi in the National Herald case. The ED had also summoned Congress's acting president Sonia Gandhi in this case, but as she has tested Corona positive, she was not available for questioning. The case dates back to 2012 when BJP leader Subramanian Swamy filed a lawsuit alleging wrongful acquisition of the National Herald, the newspaper published by the company Associated Journals Limited (AJL) founded by the first Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru in 1937 in which 5,000 other freedom fighters were shareholders.

Besides National Herald, AJL used to publish newspapers named Qaumi Awaaz in Urdu and Navjeevan in Hindi ​​till 2008. The company got land from governments in many cities at affordable prices. As per reports, Associated Journal Limited had 1,057 shareholders as of 2010. However the downfall started in 2008 when the company declared losses and ceased publication of all newspapers.

Also read: Rahul Gandhi asked to rejoin ED interrogation today

Swamy alleged that Congress President Sonia Gandhi and Rahul Gandhi “wrongfully” acquired AJL after settling the Rs 90 crore of its liabilities through a “fake company” called Young India Company, which was formed on February 26, 2011 with Rs 50 lakh. Sonia and Rahul hold 38-38 per cent stake in Young India Company while late Congress leaders Motilal Vora and Oscar Fernandez held the remaining 24 per cent.

According to Swamy, Young India Company got nine crore shares of Rs 10 each of AJL accounting for 99 per cent shares after Congress waived the loan of Rs 90 crore to AJL. After the deal, in 2012, Subramanian Swamy filed a lawsuit alleging the wrongful acquisition of the National Herald. Swamy alleged that through the acquisition of the property, including the building of Herald House at Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg in Delhi, worth Rs 2,000 crore, was encroached upon.

Read: Congress rallies behind Rahul in a show of unity

After the Narendra Modi-led BJP government came to power in 2014, the case came back to the limelight with the Enforcement Directorate taking up the probe. In June 2014, based on Subramanian Swamy's petition, the court issued summons against Sonia Gandhi and Rahul Gandhi. In August that year, the ED also registered a case of money laundering. Sonia Gandhi and Rahul Gandhi were granted bail in the case in 2015. In 2016, the Supreme Court also exempted all the accused from appearing in the court. Motilal Vora, Oscar Fernandez, Sam Pitroda and Suman Dubey are also named in this case.

Quick Links / Policies

• PRIVACY POLICY
• CODE OF ETHICS
• TERMS & CONDITIONS

Please write to us, for media partnership and Ad-sales inquiries. Email: [email protected]

As Summers Simmer, Here's How You Can Protect Yourself From Heat Wave

With artificial intelligence, researchers find where greek philosopher plato was buried, explained: why indians are the least promiscuous of most people in the world, sins of omission: how caa plays a cruel joke on sri lankan tamil refugees.

Copyright © 2024 Ushodaya Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., All Rights Reserved.

• Register / Login

• International
• Photo Stories
• Interactives
• Himachal Pradesh
• Jammu and Kashmir
• Madhya Pradesh
• Uttar Pradesh
• Uttarakhand
• Andhra Pradesh
• Chhattisgarh
• West Bengal
• Maharashtra
• Arunachal Pradesh
• Entertainment
• Election 2019
• Assam Elections 2021
• Assembly Elections 2023
• Elections 2024
• Elections - Interactives
• World Cup 2023
• Budget 2023
• Flight Insight
• Economy Series
• Kashmir’s Frozen Turbulence
• The legend of Ramjanmabhoomi
• Liberalisation@30
• How to tame a dragon
• Celebrating biodiversity
• Farm Matters
• 50 days of solitude
• Bringing Migrants Home
• Budget 2020
• Jharkhand Votes
• The Federal Investigates
• The Federal Impact
• Vanishing Sand
• Gandhi @ 150
• Andhra Today
• Field report
• Operation Gulmarg
• Pandemic @1 Mn in India
• The Federal Year-End
• The Zero Year
• Brand studio
• Personal Finance
• The Eighth Column

REPLUG: Explained — what’s the National Herald case that haunts Congress

We republish a june 1, 2022 article on the case pertaining to the alleged misappropriation of assets of over ₹2,000 crore of associated journals ltd, parent company of newspaper national herald.

The Enforcement Directorate (ED) on Monday summoned Congress president Sonia Gandhi and her son Rahul Gandhi in the National Herald case. While Rahul has been summoned on June 2, Sonia will be questioned on June 8.

Here’s is a lowdown on the case:

What’s the National Herald case all about?

Sonia, Rahul and their associates, have been charged with misappropriating profit and assets worth over ₹2,000 crore of Associated Journals Limited (AJL), after allegedly acquiring through fraudulence all its shareholdings and properties, via the company Young Indian.

AJL and National Herald

AJL, a brainchild of Jawaharlal Nehru, was founded in 1937 as an unlisted company to support 5,000 freedom fighters who were made its shareholders.

The company published the English daily National Herald , as well as Qaumi Awaz in Urdu and Navjeevan in Hindi. The newspapers, however, were shut down in 2008 after the parent company ran into a debt.

AJL had earlier taken an interest-free loan of ₹90.25 crore from Indian National Congress.

Also read: ED summons Sonia and Rahul; BJP using puppet agencies, says Congress

In 2011, Young India, which has Sonia and Rahul on its board of directors, took over all the shareholding and properties worth ₹5,000 crore.

Young India was set up in 2010, with Rahul as its director. Both Sonia and Rahul had 76 per cent shares in the company while the remaining 24 per cent were held by Congress leaders Motilal Vora and Oscar Fernandez.

In 2012, BJP leader Subramaniam Swamy filed a case against Sonia, Rahul and other Congress leaders, accusing of acquiring AJL through “malicious” to grab the company’s properties worth ₹16 billion apart from enjoying its profits.

Charges against Gandhis, Congress

Swamy said, by acquiring AJL through Young India, the Congress gained the publication rights of National Herald and Qaumi Awaz and real estate properties, which were originally given to Nehru by the government for the publication of newspapers.

The BJP leader said the loan given by Congress to AJL was “illegal” as it was taken from party funds and the Income Tax Act prohibits political organisations from making financial transactions with a third party.

Swamy alleged that Young India during AJL’s acquisition had paid only ₹50 lakh of the ₹90.25 crore the latter owed to the Congress, hinting that the rest was possibly waived off by the party.

Others named in the case are Vora, Oscar Fernandez, journalist Suman Dubey and technocrat Sam Pitroda.

AJL shareholders cry foul play

AJL shareholders, the descendants of freedom fighters, including former law minister Shanti Bhusan and former high court chief justice Markandey Katju alleged that they had no clue neither were sent notice when Young India acquired AJL and that the shares held by their father were automatically transferred to AJL without their permission.

What’s the Congress’ defence?

The Congress says that the Young India was formed with the ‘aim of charity’ and not for profit and that its transactions were not financial but ‘commercial’ in nature.

Quick look at case timeline

On August 1 2014 , ED took up the case to probe if any money laundering was involved in it.

On December 7, 2015 , the Delhi High Court noted “criminal intent” and scrapped the appeals of the seven accused, asking them to appear in person before the trial court on December 9.

On February 12, 2016 , the Supreme Court while granting exemption to the accused from personal appearance denied to quash proceedings against them.

In 2018 , the Centre decided to end the perpetual lease and evict AJL from Herald House premises, arguing that it was no more involved in publication for which the building was leased to the company in 1962.

In April 2019 , the Supreme Court, however ordered a stay on the proceedings against AJL under the Public Premises (Eviction Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971.

The same year, the ED permanently attached properties worth ₹64 crore in the case.

In May 2020 , the ED attached a nine-storey building valued at ₹16.38 crore in Mumbai linked to the case.

The agency alleges that the accused including former Haryana Chief Minister Bhupinder Singh Hooda and Congress Motilal Vora, used ‘proceeds of the crime’ – land allotted to AJL in Haryana – and mortgaged it with Syndicate Bank’s Delhi branch for a loan to construct the building.

In February 2021 , Swamy approached the Delhi High Court against a trial court’s scrapping of his plea to lead evidence to prosecute the accused in the case.

In April 2022 , senior Congress leader Mallikarjun Kharge recorded his statement in a Prevention of Money Laundering case at the ED headquarters.

The same month the ED recorded the statement of Congress leader Pawan Kumar in a case involving AJL and Young India.

Similar Posts

Top stories.

Search bar.

• Legal Queries
• Files 
• Online Law Courses 
• Lawyers Search
• Legal Dictionary
• The Indian Penal Code
• Juvenile Justice
• Negotiable Instruments
• Commercial Courts Act
• The 3 New Criminal Laws
• Matrimonial Laws
• Data Privacy
• Court Fees Act
• Commercial Law
• Criminal Law
• Procedural Law
• The Constitutional Expert
• Matrimonial
• Writs and PILs
• CrPC Certification Course
• Criminal Manual
• Execution U/O 21
• Transfer of Property
• Domestic Violence
• Muslim Laws
• Indian Constitution
• Arbitration
• Matrimonial-Criminal Law
• Indian Evidence Act
• Live Classes
• Writs and PIL

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

FIASCO Of The National Herald: A Case Study

Political vendetta used as a reason to cover money laundering and evasion from cases.

Key takeaways

• The once renowned national magazine lost its popularity when Congress used it as its mouthpiece.
• Rajiv Gandhi and Sonia Gandhi acquire AJL through their so acclaimed non-profit organization, Youth Indian Ltd.
• Subramanian Swamy fileda case for money laundering and embezzlement, which was defended as a “political vendetta” by the Congress Party.
• Enforcement Directorate (ED) questions the Gandhis on the case and protests ensue.

The Emergence of National Herald

National Herald was a daily Indian newspaper print established by the former Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru in 1938 along with other freedom fighters, at Lucknow. It was published by “The Associated Journals Ltd” [AJL] which is currently owned by a non-profit organisation Young Indian Limited, with Sonia Gandhi and Rahul Gandhi as its board members [ ]. It recognized itself with the freedom struggles and the Indian independence movement and amassed widespread popularity among the nation as a reputable editorial. What was once molded by the great national leaders as an instrument to propagate independence, slowly transformed into a representation of the ideologies of Congress and to promote its agendas.

The newspaper was renowned for its raw, bold and fierce statements, which met in conflict with the British government, ultimately leading to its shutdown for three years between 1942 and 1945 during the Quit India Movement. However, it was resurrected in 1945 and with the help of its Managing Director, Feroz Gandhi it regained some fiscal health. Jawaharlal Nehru served as Chairman of the Board of Directors before he was assigned as the Prime Minister.

Congress party played a huge role in influencing the paper thereon. In 1963, Nehru admitted that the paper was "generally favouring Congress policy" while maintaining "an independent outlook", during the silver jubilee of the National Herald[ ]. Even when the paper was funded and managed by Congress, it had some of the finest journalists on the panel who contributed hugely to its success as a leading English daily. The paper met a catastrophe again when it ceased operations, shutting down in 2008 due to financial reasons from lack of advertising revenues and over-staffing but was relaunched in 2016 as a digital publication. Allegations of corruption and favoritism were placed against the newspaper during 2008 itself. This was just the beginning of a debacle that was to ensue for the party and the Gandhis.

What is the National Herald case about

The case revolves around the Gandhis from the Congress Party, Young Indian Limited and AJL. AJL was a public limited company incorporated in 1937 for publishing newspapers including National Herald. Congress was providing AJL with unsecured and interest-free loans till 2010 for its upliftment after shutting down the physical prints of the National Herald Newspaper, which amounted to INR 90.2 crores. Young Indian Ltd is a non-profit, charitable organisation incorporated in 2010 which has its board members comprising Sonia Gandhi and Rahul Gandhi, who also happen to be its major shareholders. The company being a charitable organisation is fully exempted from tax payments. This company acquires all of ALJ’s debts from Congress when Congress had apparently claimed that AJL was unable to pay back loans.

A loan worth INR 90 crore was bought for Rs. 50 lakh, which became the debt payable by AJL to the company[ ]. It is to be noted that this transaction of 90 crore debt to Young Indian happened 2months prior to when Congress received 50lakhs. AJL converted the 50 lakhs debt into equity shares and subsequently Young Indian acquired AJL as its fully owned subsidiary. This meant that Young Indian had full control over AJL and its assets for 50lakhs, on 90lakhs debts written off by Congress.Many shareholders, including former law minister Shanti Bhushan and former chief justice of the Allahabad and Madras High Courts Markandey Katju, stated that they were not given any notice of the acquisition of AJL by Young Indian Limited and that the shares held by their fathers were transferred to AJL without their consent in 2010[ ].

The Gandhi family becomes the owner of 99.9% of ALJ’s shares through Young Indian. Rahul Gandhi and his sister Priyanka Gandhi Vadra bought additional shares through Ratan Deep Trust and Janhit Nidhi Trust, in furtherance of acquiring 100% of AJL, in violation of the Companies Act[ ]. This was challenged by Subramanian Swamy in 2013 as a case of money laundering and embezzlement. He claimed that the assets were acquired in a malicious way.

Income Tax questions Congress

• The most intriguing question was that why AJL failed to repay loans to Congress directly when they had a sufficient amount of 2000 crore rupees in assets which could have been used to set off the 90crore debt by liquidation.
• Given the above situation, why did Young Indian offer to buy the loan for a cheaper rate and why were assets worth a thousand crores agreed to be transferred to Young Indian for a trivial amount?
• Young India was held under a financial inquiry in another case. The question here was, why did Young Indian company provide 50 lakhs rupees to Congress to acquire the debt, when it itself had already borrowed INR 1 crore loan from a Kolkata-basedcompany called Dotex. This transaction was flagged as ‘suspicious’ by the Financial Intelligence Unit.
• The tax exemption for Young Indian company under section 25 of the Companies Act was revoked by the ITAT in 2017 on the grounds that there has been no record of any charitable activities undertaken by the company[ ].The AJL acquisition benefitted Young Indian ltd. This benefit qualifies as business profits and gains under Section 28(iv) of the IT Act and hence Young Indianwill be liable to pay tax as the benefit was for fair market value[ ].
• One of the accused people in the case was the late, Motilal Vora who played chief roles in Congress, AJL and Young Indian. He was also the treasurer of AICC. Being a key person, it was quite an inadmissible fact that Motilal did not know about the 2000 crore assets that could be used to discharge the 90 crore loans with Congress by AGL.
• Why was the consent of shareholders of AJL not taken into consideration while the acquisition of Young Indian Ltd?

Congress denies all the allegations placed against them and terms them “political vendetta”. It claimed that the accusations of money laundering are used as a smoke screen against the prevailing issues like inflation and social unrest. Congress further claims that it was merely helping out AJL from a financial crisis owing to the long-standing relationship with AJL from the National Herald newspaper times and there was no commercial interest involved. They acclaimed that AJL, like any other company, converted its loan into equity shares to become debt-free. Young Indian Ltd, the acquiring company was a non-profit organisation and it could not pay any dividends to its shareholders or directors, indirectly meaning that there was no transfer of property and AJL holds most of its property. Hence, Congress called it to be a strange case of money laundering without any money.

The Income Tax Department and Enforcement Directorate (ED) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, took matters into their hands to investigate the complaint filed by Swamy.

Petition filed by Subramanian Swamy, a political vendetta or not

On 1 November 2012, BJP’s Subramanian Swamy filed a case against Rahul Gandhi, Sonia Gandhi and other members of the Congress party before the Trial court in Delhi for cheating, embezzlement and misappropriation of funds in acquisition of AJL through Young Indian Company. Swamy alleged that the Gandhis illegally acquired properties and profits worth INR 2000 crores under the guise of acquisition. He claimed that there were huge sums of money laundering associated with the Gandhis from their acquisition of AJL, through their privately owned company Young Indian Ltd. the case was filed under various sections of IPC including Sections 403 (Dishonest Misappropriation of Property), 406 (Criminal Breach of Trust), and 420 (Cheating) read with 120B (Criminal Conspiracy) [ ].

Subramanian Swamy contested that according to sections 29 A to C of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 and per section 13 A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, it was illegal for a political party to lend any kind of money for commercial purposes to a third party[ ]. He requested an investigation by the Central Bureau of Investigation and demanded de-recognition of the Congress party for misappropriating public funds. In June 2014, the magistrate ordered for the summoning of Sonia Gandhi, Rahul Gandhi, Motilal Vora, Oscar Fernandes, Suman Dubey and Sam Pitroda to defend themselves as it found that there was sufficient evidence to support the allegation placed by Swamy. The Metropolitan judge observed that the creation of the Young Indian ltd. was itself a sham to convert public money for the personal use of the Congress party and to illegally acquire assets of AJL. The court further noted that the accused persons have acted “in consortium with each other to achieve the said nefarious purpose/design” [ ].

• APPEALS TO THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT AND THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF DELHI

The defendants appealed against the summons to Delhi High Court. The case was redirected to an appropriate bench for a hearing in January 2015. The Enforcement Directorate (ED) initiated investigations in the meanwhile during August 2014 for money laundering which was reopened again in 2015. The High Court noted “criminal intent” in its judgment and dismissed the appeal, ordering the parties to be present before the trial court. In December 2016 the Supreme Court exempted from personal appearance but not from the entire proceedings.

In December 2015, the Gandhis were granted unconditional bail by the Patiala High Court. In July 2016 the High Court reversed the Trial Court judgment that granted permission to examine balance sheets of AJL, Young Indian Ltd and other relevant documents of Congress. Swamy’s claim in 2018 to verify materials was also denied. In 2018, a 56-year perpetual lease ended, to evict AJL from Herald House on the grounds that it was not used for publishing but for commercial purposes.

The Supreme Court has later allowed the Income Tax Department (IT) to re-assess the filings made by the Gandhis in 2011-12 financial year, however restricted the powers to detain the parties. In May, 2019 the ED attached properties worth INR 64 crores permanently.

Current status of the case

After the trial court took cognizance of an Income Tax Department investigation against Young Indian Pvt Ltd on the basis on the complaint submitted by Subramanian Swamy in 2013, the investigation agency filed a new case under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA)[ ].

As part of the ongoing money laundering probe, Enforcement Directorate has raided various locations in Delhi associated with the case to gather additional evidence for financial irregularity.

The Enforcement Directorate summoned Sonia Gandhi and Rahul Gandhi to question money laundering in the National Herald case. The decade-long case involves the misappropriation of assets in the course of the transformation of debts into equity shares. During the investigation, Rahul, Sonia, Mallikarjuna Kharge and Pawan Kumar told the officials that the transactions were handled by Motilal Vora but all of them failed to produce any document supporting the claim. ED has now temporarily sealed the Young Indian office. Following this additional police forces were deployed at the residence of Congress leaders and their headquarters for security purposes. Subramanian Swamy says that the ED raids should be conducted in the Congress office and Sonia Gandhi’s house. According to ED, assets worth INR 800 crores are owned by AJL and it seeks to inquire about the fact that Young Indian being a non-profit company manages to undertake commercial activities [ ].

Protests and Dharnas following the investigations

The National Herald case has caused a stir in the political arena leading to riots across the country. The Gandhis are embroiled in criminal investigations of ED based on the complaints filed by BJP member Subramanian Swamy. Both Sonia Gandhi and Rahul Gandhi were questioned by ED for the fraudulent acquisition of AJL by Young Indian Ltd. in which they own 38% shares each. The interrogations were recorded as per section 50 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act [ ]. Following the ED investigations, Rahul Gandhi has claimed that the Central government is suppressing the opposition parties and is trying to deviate the attention of people from the actual realities like inflation. He added that his party members are not afraid of them and will not be intimidated by their actions. His reaction comes after the ED sealed the Young Indian office, and barricaded his house and the Congress office. He stated that his party will continue to protest against injustice and that “truth cannot be barricaded”.

In the recent nationwide protests on 5 August, Priyanka Gandhi was participating against inflation, unemployment and a hike in GST rates. The “anti-inflation protests” [Halla Bol] across the nation were organized by Congress amidst the questioning of members of Congress by ED in the National Herald case [ ]. The members have been tweeting that there will be a ‘Hakka Bol’ against the ‘Modi-made disaster’.

The ED is still investigating the shareholdings, and functioning of AJL and Young Indian ltd as well as the financial transactions that took place in the presence of chief personnel.

National Herald newspaper was a brainchild of Nehru and little did anyone expect that it will cause a downfall in the history of the Congress Party. When the publishing company AJL was acquired by the Gandhis under the disguise of Youth Indian Ltd., a non-profit organization, BJP member Subramanian Swamy filed a case for money laundering against the party members. The case was inquired before the courts and now ED has taken over the same. While the Congress party claims it to be a political vendetta, Swamy states it to be a clear case of misappropriation of funds. The members of the party are still being interrogated to gather further evidence to support or deny the allegations.

Click here to Get More Content on LCI Android App

Category Others , Other Articles by - Kavya Sri  

Recent Articles

• Exploring The Nexus Of Freedom Of The Press: Evolution Of Article 19, Restrictions, And Shield Laws In India
• Fair Trial in Criminal Cases Involving Cross-Complaints Necessitates Both Cases Be Tried Together by the Same Judge To Avoid Prejudice: AP HC
• Exploring The Differences Between Judicial Separation And Divorce Under The Hindu Marriage Acr 1955
• Paradigm Shift: High Court Of Punjab And Haryana Embraces Virtual Hearings In Sarvesh Mathur Vs Registrar General
• Specialist Doctors Refusing To Work In Govt Hospitals Are Infringing Fundamental Rights Of Poor And Needy Patients: Madras HC
• Is It Time to Find A Child Support Lawyer?
• Dissolution Of Marriage Under Muslim Law
• Electronic Voting Machines In India: Evolution, Advantages And Controversies
• Transfer Of Property Mcqs � Pyq Series: Judiciary Special
• �five-year Duration For Ll.b. Course Unreasonable�- Plea In Supreme Court For Three-year Law Degree Course After 12th Standard

More »

Popular Articles

• SC Imposes Rs 5 Lakh Cost On Wife's Father For Filing False Cases At Different Places To Harass Husband
• A Comprehensive Analysis Of S.53 A: Unravelling The Basic Procedure For Examination Of Rape Accused, Evidentiary Value, And Constitutional Validity
• Important Constitution MCQs - PYQ Series: Judiciary Special
• Although Adultery Is Ground For Divorce, It Can't Be A Ground To Deny Child's Custody: Bombay HC
• Kerala HC Lays Down Guidelines For DNA Test Of Children Born To Rape Victims And Given In Adoption
• ED Cannot Deprive Person Of Right To Sleep By Recording Statements At Unearthly Hours: Bombay HC
• Gratification Of Electors During Elections Demolishes Basic Structure Of Constitution And Democracy: Madras HC

LCI Articles

You can also submit your article by sending to email

Browse by Category

• Business Law
• Constitutional Law
• Labour & Service Law
• Legal Documents
• Intellectual Property Rights
• Property Law

• Top Members
• Share Files
• LCI Online Learning

Member Strength 9,48,826 and growing..

Download LCI APP

Our Network Sites

• We are Hiring
• Terms of Service
• Privacy Policy

© 2024 LAWyersclubindia.com. Let us grow stronger by mutual exchange of knowledge.

Lawyersclubindia Search

Whatsapp groups, login at lawyersclubindia.

Alternatively, you can log in using:

ED summons for Rahul, Sonia Gandhi: Here's all you need to know about the National Herald case

Why did ED summon Rahul Gandhi? Here’s all you need to know about National Herald Case and the Young Indian ltd controversy.

Related Videos

Omar Abdullah, furious over changing Anantnag-Rajouri voting date, says 'ECI is helping BJP'

Salman Khan house firing case: Anuj Thapan accused of supplying weapon attempts suicide, dies at hospital

Odisha grapples with severe heatwave, temperatures soar to 46 degrees Celsius

Delhi-NCR schools bomb threat: LG seeks detailed report from police, Russian IP address traced

Pannun murder plot: 'India taking it seriously', White House reacts to Washington Post’s ‘speculative’ report

'India aiming to be superpower while we beg for funds': Pak LoP draws sharp contrast with India

Lok Sabha Elections 2024: 'Democracy will win, dictatorship will lose…', AAP's Gopal Rai targets BJP

PM Modi taunts Sharad Pawar; says 'wandering soul' enjoys spoiling others work

US media report names RAW officer in alleged plot to take out Gurpatwant Pannun; MEA responds

India rebukes Canada over 'pro-Khalistan' slogans at PM Justin Trudeau's event

PM Narendra Modi narrates untold story of 2019 Balakot strike during a rally in Karnataka's Bagalkot

Fake Video row: 'Bahut Bada Khatra hai...' PM Modi, warns people against forwarding such videos

Chandrayaan-3 success impacted perception of Indians abroad: EAM S Jaishankar

'If INDI Alliance gets the majority, who will become PM then?': Amit Shah's veiled jibe at opposition

J-K: Fresh snowfall blankets Gurez valley, disrupts normal life

J-K: Passenger vehicle plunges into Nallah Sindh at Sonamarg; 4 dead, 2 injured

Chhattisgarh Road Accident: At least 9 dead, 23 injured as car rams parked vehicle in Bemetara

George Soros, elites funding agitators for pro-Palestine protests in US campuses: Report

Mahadev Betting App case: Actor Sahil Khan sent to police custody till May 1

Jammu & Kashmir: BRO rescues 35 vehicles stuck in snow at Razdan Top

'Kejriwal put personal interest first…', HC raps AAP govt; BJP slams Delhi CM for not quitting

'Aashiq ka janaza hai…': Amit Shah urges public to bid 'permanent farewell' to Digvijaya Singh

Massive forest fire rages in Nainital, IAF deploys MI-17 choppers in ongoing dousing ops

Major child trafficking op: 95 kids illegally being taken to Bihar from UP rescued in Ayodhya

Tiruchirappalli Customs Officials seize gold worth Rs 70 lakh concealed by passenger in his rectum

Land sinks in J-K: Residents relocate as houses develop cracks, road gets damaged at Ramban

Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni calls PM Modi, invites him to the G7 summit in June

West Bengal: CBI calls NSG commandos to unearth 'huge cache of bombs and weapons' in Sandeshkhali

In Conversation with Michael Moss, Author of NYC Bestseller - Sugar, Salt, Fat

'Khatarnaak...': CM Yogi condemns Congress manifesto, targets Pitroda over 'Inheritance Tax' idea

'If Kharge wants to join BJP, then…': CM Sarma after Cong chief seeks to meet PM over 'Nyay Patra'

Supreme Court rejects 100 per cent EVM-VVPAT verification plea, says 'blindly doubting breeds scepticism'

Meet Kanpur's 'Golden Baba' who has vowed to remain barefoot until CM Yogi becomes PM

Patna fire: At least 6 killed, over 30 rescued after fire breaks out in a hotel, says DSP K Murari

Massive Bird flu outbreak hits Jharkhand, around 4000 birds culled

JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon calls PM Modi 'tough' for breaking old bureaucratic systems

Jaishankar recalls Sardar Patel's last letter to Nehru on China: 'You are very suspicious...'

Supreme Court verdict on petitions seeking VVPAT verification of EVMs

EAM Jaishankar slams Western media: 'They think they are political players in our elections...'

'From diffidence to confidence…', EAM Jaishankar decodes impact of Balakot airstrike, Uri surgical strike

Have something to say post your comment, to post this comment you must.

Log In/Connect with:

Fill in your details:

Will be displayed

Will not be displayed

Share this Comment:

Find this comment offensive?

Choose your reason below and click on the Report button. This will alert our moderators to take action

Reason for reporting:

Your Reason has been Reported to the admin.

My Saved Videos

Mail this video.

• Personal Finance
• Today's Paper
• Partner Content
• Entertainment
• Social Viral
• Pro Kabaddi League

National Herald case

What is National Herald case

Latest updates on national herald case.

• Suzlon Energy Share Price Adani Enterprises Share Price Adani Power Share Price IRFC Share Price Tata Motors Share Price Tata Steel Share Price Yes Bank Share Price Infosys Share Price SBI Share Price Tata Power Share Price HDFC Bank Share Price
• Latest News Company News Market News India News Politics News Cricket News Personal Finance Technology News World News Industry News Education News Opinion Shows Economy News Lifestyle News Health News
• Today's Paper About Us T&C Privacy Policy Cookie Policy Disclaimer Investor Communication GST registration number List Compliance Contact Us Advertise with Us Sitemap Subscribe Careers BS Apps
• Budget 2024 Lok Sabha Election 2024 IPL 2024 Pro Kabaddi League IPL Points Table 2024

National Politics | What to know in the Supreme Court case about…

Share this:.

• Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window)
• Click to print (Opens in new window)
• Your Tax Dollars
• Massachusetts

National Politics

National politics | what to know in the supreme court case about immunity for former president trump.

By MARK SHERMAN (Associated Press)

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court has scheduled a special session to hear arguments over whether former President Donald Trump can be prosecuted over his efforts to undo his 2020 election loss to President Joe Biden.

The case, to be argued Thursday, stems from Trump’s attempts to have charges against him dismissed. Lower courts have found he cannot claim immunity for actions that, prosecutors say, illegally sought to interfere with the election results.

The Republican ex-president has been charged in federal court in Washington with conspiring to overturn the 2020 election, one of four criminal cases he is facing. A trial has begun in New York over hush money payments to a porn star to cover up an alleged sexual encounter.

The Supreme Court is moving faster than usual in taking up the case, though not as quickly as special counsel Jack Smith wanted, raising questions about whether there will be time to hold a trial before the November election, if the justices agree with lower courts that Trump can be prosecuted.

The justices ruled earlier this term in another case that arose from Trump’s actions following the election, culminating in the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol. The court unanimously held that states could not invoke a provision of the 14th Amendment known as the insurrection clause to prevent Trump from appearing on presidential ballots.

Here are some things to know:

WHAT’S THE ISSUE?

When the justices agreed on Feb. 28 to hear the case, they put the issue this way: “Whether and if so to what extent does a former President enjoy presidential immunity from criminal prosecution for conduct alleged to involve official acts during his tenure in office.”

That’s a question the Supreme Court has never had to answer. Never before has a former president faced criminal charges so the court hasn’t had occasion to take up the question of whether the president’s unique role means he should be shielded from prosecution, even after he has left office.

Both sides point to the absence of previous prosecutions to undergird their arguments. Trump’s lawyers told the court that presidents would lose their independence and be unable to function in office if they knew their actions in office could lead to criminal charges once their terms were over. Smith’s team wrote that the lack of previous criminal charges “underscores the unprecedented nature” of what Trump is accused of.

NIXON’S GHOST

Richard Nixon resigned the presidency in disgrace nearly 50 years ago rather than face impeachment by the House of Representatives and removal from office by the Senate in the Watergate scandal.

Both Trump’s lawyers and Smith’s team are invoking Nixon at the Supreme Court.

“In view of the special nature of the President’s constitutional office and functions, we think it appropriate to recognize absolute Presidential immunity from damages liability for acts within the ‘outer perimeter’ of his official responsibility,” Justice Lewis Powell wrote for the court.

But that decision recognized a difference between civil lawsuits and “the far weightier” enforcement of federal criminal laws, Smith’s team told the court. They also invoked the high court decision that forced Nixon to turn over incriminating White House tapes for use in the prosecutions of his top aides.

And prosecutors also pointed to President Gerald Ford’s pardon of Nixon, and Nixon’s acceptance of it, as resting “on the understanding that the former President faced potential criminal liability.”

TIMING IS EVERYTHING

The subtext of the immunity fight is about timing. Trump has sought to push back the trial until after the election, when, if he were to regain the presidency, he could order the Justice Department to drop the case. Prosecutors have been pressing for a quick decision from the Supreme Court so that the clock can restart on trial preparations. It could take three months once the court acts before a trial actually starts.

If the court hands down its decision in late June, which would be the typical timeframe for a case argued so late in the court’s term, there might not be enough time to start the trial before the election.

WHO ARE THE LAWYERS?

Trump is represented by D. John Sauer, a former Rhodes Scholar and Supreme Court clerk to Justice Antonin Scalia. While serving as Missouri’s solicitor general, Sauer won the only Supreme Court case he has argued until now, a 5-4 decision in an execution case . Sauer also filed legal briefs asking the Supreme Court to repudiate Biden’s victory in 2020.

In addition to working for Scalia early in his legal career, Sauer also served as a law clerk to Michael Luttig when he was a Republican-appointed judge on the Richmond, Virginia-based federal appeals court. Luttig joined with other former government officials on a brief urging the Supreme Court to allow the prosecution to proceed. Luttig also advised Vice President Mike Pence not to succumb to pressure from Trump to reject some electoral votes, part of Trump’s last-ditch plan to remain in office.

The justices are quite familiar with Sauer’s opponent, Michael Dreeben. As a longtime Justice Department official, Dreeben argued more than 100 cases at the court, many of them related to criminal law. Dreeben was part of special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 election and joined Smith’s team last year after a stint in private practice.

In Dreeben’s very first Supreme Court case 35 years ago, he faced off against Chief Justice John Roberts, then a lawyer in private practice.

Of the nine justices hearing the case, three were nominated by Trump — Amy Coney Barrett, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh. But it’s the presence of a justice confirmed decades before Trump’s presidency, Justice Clarence Thomas, that’s generated the most controversy.

Thomas’s wife, Ginni Thomas, urged the reversal of the 2020 election results and then attended the rally that preceded the Capitol riot. That has prompted calls for the justice to step aside from several court cases involving Trump and Jan. 6.

But Thomas has ignored the calls, taking part in the unanimous court decision that found states cannot kick Trump off the ballot as well as last week’s arguments over whether prosecutors can use a particular obstruction charge against Capitol riot defendants. Trump faces the same charge in special counsel Jack Smith’s prosecution in Washington.

More in National Politics

Opinion Columnists | Howie Carr: Wreak havoc on Harvard with endowment tax

Nation | Takeaways from the start of week 2 of testimony in Trump’s hush money trial

SUBSCRIBER ONLY

Local news | tufts university leadership threatens barring seniors from commencement as encampment grows.

Politics | Trump beats Biden in every swing state, new poll shows

• You Are At:

National Herald case: PMLA authority upholds ED's attachment of assets worth Rs 752 cr in big blow to Gandhis

The matter involving the national herald concerns the alleged misuse of assets over rs 2,000 crore during an equity transaction. the congress party has categorically denied all allegations related to the case..

The authority said in its order that it holds the belief that the movable assets and equity shares, which were seized by the ED, constitute proceeds of crime and are connected to the offence of money laundering.

The agency can now take possession of these assets like the Herald House at ITO in Delhi, land and building in Mumbai, Lucknow and some other locations. The final confiscation of these assets can be done once the trial court rules in favour of the prosecution (ED).

ED attaches properties worth Rs 752 crore

The central agency had on November 21, 2023, provisionally attached properties by issuing a provisional attachment order under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) against Associated Journals Ltd. ( AJL) and Young Indian (YI).

The National Herald is published by AJL and owned by Young Indian Private Limited. Congress leaders Sonia Gandhi and Rahul Gandhi are majority shareholders of Young Indian with 38 per cent shares held by each one of them.

ED questions Gandhis

In connection with the case, the probe agency also questioned and recorded the statements of Congress' first family Sonia Gandhi, her son Rahul Gandhi and party president Mallikarjun Kharge. ED initiated a money-laundering investigation on the basis of a process issued by the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate of Delhi after taking cognizance of a private complaint vide order dated June 26, 2014.

What is National Herald case? 

In 1938, Jawaharlal Nehru and other freedom fighters had founded a newspaper named 'National Herald'. It was originally published by Associated Journals Limited. The matter involving the National Herald concerns the alleged misuse of assets over Rs 2,000 crore during an equity transaction. The newspaper shut down in 2008 after a Rs 90 crore loan from the Congress failed to revive it. Young Indian Pvt Ltd (YIL), which included Sonia and Rahul Gandhi on its board of directors, acquired AJL in 2010. 

Subramanian Swamy filed case against Gandhis

Two years later, a complaint was filed in 2012 by BJP leader Subramanian Swamy, accusing Congress leaders of betraying confidence and cheating on the acquisition of AJL by YIL. Notably, no political organisation is permitted to transact financial business with a third party under the Income Tax Act. Swamy also claimed that Sonia Gandhi and Rahul Gandhi had 'taken over' the assets in order to gain profits. He added that the Congress had written off the remaining Rs 89.5 crore since YIL had only paid Rs 50 lakh for the right to recoup Rs 90 crore that AJL owed to the party.

Also Read: National Herald case: Kharge slams PM Modi on ED attachment, says Congress will not be scared of BJP

Also Read: Explained: What is National Herald case in which ED has attached properties worth Rs 752 crore

Read all the Breaking News Live on indiatvnews.com and Get Latest English News & Updates from India

• national herald case
• national herald

'Why TMC, better to vote for BJP': Congress leader Adhir Ranjan's remark sparks controversy | VIDEO

'Would have been completely lost if...', Virat Kohli's heartfelt post for Anushka Sharma is here

CSK vs PBKS, IPL 2024 Live Score: Super Kings hope for good start, Punjab need early wickets

Related India News

Indira Gandhi to Atal Bihari Vajpayee: List of leaders who won Lok Sabha polls from different states

What are the SOPs followed for dealing with a bomb threat in schools?

When PM Modi led a procession with a copy of Constitution placed on an elephant | VIDEO

Fear of password theft looms! Delhi Police unveils ingenious hack to thwart system hacks

Latest News

Why retailers are ceasing OnePlus smartphone sales in India?

Why is Matheesha Pathirana not playing in CSK vs PBKS IPL 2024 game?

UPI transaction count drops in April: Details here

• Aap Ki Adalat
• Aaj Ki Baat
• Kurukshetra
• Haqiqat Kya Hai
• Entertainment

US President Biden to speak with leaders of Qatar and Egypt on freeing hostages from Hamas

U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken meets with Israeli President Isaac Herzog

Tribal woman with zero balance in her bank account takes on crorepatis from BJP and Cong in Korba

South Korea confirms talks on AUKUS pact with US, UK and Australia | World News | India TV News

Salman Khan House Firing: Accused Anuj Thapan dies in custody | 1st May | Entertainment Wrap

• Maharashtra
• Uttar Pradesh
• Madhya Pradesh
• West Bengal
• Jammu & Kashmir
• Chhattisgarh

Obscene video case: PM knew about Hassan MP Prajwal Revanna's crime, alleges Congress

Delhi-NCR schools bomb threat: Emails sent via Russian domain, police to take Interpol's help

India successfully carries out trials of 'SMART' anti-submarine missile system: All you need to know

Congress leaders Neeraj Basoya, Nasseb Singh quit party over 'humiliating alliance' with AAP

Bomb threat in schools: Delhi Police says it was a hoax, requests people not to panic

• Constituencies
• Key Candidates

Nepal announce squad for T20 World Cup 2024, Rohit Paudel named captain

Jos Buttler pushed for players to call back midway from IPL 2024, reveals Rob Key

'Only thing you can control...': 30-year-old reacts after being ignored for India's T20 WC squad

'It feels like more of an escalation than a de-escalation': Student as police clear protesters

China's 'game changer' advanced 3rd aircraft carrier begins sea trials amid South China Sea tensions

Pakistan is blocking mobile SIM cards of over half a million people I Know why

Islamic State claims responsibility for mosque shooting in Afghanistan that killed six people

China: 19 killed after highway collapses in southern Guangdong province amid heavy rains

• Celebrities

Pushpa 2: The Rule song Pushpa Pushpa celebrates uncommon journey of common man | Watch

Salman Khan house firing case: Accused Anuj Thapan, who attempted suicide in custody, dies

'Sunil Shetty ne kitne..': Netizens slam Riteish Deshmukh for backing KL Rahul for T20 WC squad

'He's had multiple back surgeries..': Bobby Deol calls brother Sunny 'stronger person' than him

• Live Scores
• Other Sports

SRH vs RR pitch report IPL 2024: How will surface at Rajiv Gandhi International Stadium play?

Realme launches new variant of its P1 smartphone: Details here

BSNL prepaid recharge plan valid for 365 days: Details here

This could be first Apple product to get AI-powered features: Details here

Why is US acquiring 81 'obsolete' Soviet-era combat aircraft from key Russian ally Kazakhstan?

Getting unknown calls on new number? Here's what is Recycled Mobile Number, how this policy works

What is end-to-end encryption and why is WhatsApp against breaking it? | Explained

Why is Karnataka government at centre of controversy over Muslim reservation in OBC quota? Know here

What is UK's Rwanda deportation bill and why is it such a big issue for Rishi Sunak? Explained

Horoscope Today, May 1: Special day for Cancer women; know about other zodiac signs

Horoscope Today, April 30: Favourable Circumstances for Taurus; know about other zodiac signs

Horoscope Today, April 29: Aries needs to be careful with politics; know about other zodiac signs

Horoscope Today, April 28: Gemini need to keep their expenses limited; know about other zodiac signs

Weekly Horoscope (April 29-May 5): Virgos must find joy in physical activities; know about your sign

GST collection hits record high of Rs 2.10 lakh crore in April

127-year-old Godrej Group splits conglomerate between family

Stock market update: BSE, NSE to remain closed today for Maharashtra Day

Air India extends suspension of Tel Aviv flights till THIS date amid tense situation in Middle East

DGCA takes action against Vistara for lapses, suspends vice president of pilot training

Long-term exposure to polluted air increases risk of type 2 diabetes

AstraZeneca reaffirms Covid vaccine safety amid rare side effect concerns

Superfood Kiwi: Know THESE 5 benefits of Chinese Gooseberry

US bans most uses of toxic chemical methylene chloride that causes brain cancer

AstraZeneca admits its Covishield can cause rare side effects: Should you be worried?

• Skip to main content
• Keyboard shortcuts for audio player

• Your Health
• Treatments & Tests
• Health Inc.
• Public Health

Reproductive rights in America

What's at stake as the supreme court hears idaho case about abortion in emergencies.

Selena Simmons-Duffin

The Supreme Court will hear another case about abortion rights on Wednesday. Protestors gathered outside the court last month when the case before the justices involved abortion pills. Tom Brenner for The Washington Post/Getty Images hide caption

The Supreme Court will hear another case about abortion rights on Wednesday. Protestors gathered outside the court last month when the case before the justices involved abortion pills.

In Idaho, when a pregnant patient has complications, abortion is only legal to prevent the woman's death. But a federal law known as EMTALA requires doctors to provide "stabilizing treatment" to patients in the emergency department.

The Biden administration sees that as a direct conflict, which is why the abortion issue is back – yet again – before the Supreme Court on Wednesday.

The case began just a few weeks after the justices overturned Roe v. Wade in 2022, when the federal Justice Department sued Idaho , arguing that the court should declare that "Idaho's law is invalid" when it comes to emergency abortions because the federal emergency care law preempts the state's abortion ban. So far, a district court agreed with the Biden administration, an appeals court panel agreed with Idaho, and the Supreme Court allowed the strict ban to take effect in January when it agreed to hear the case.

Supreme Court allows Idaho abortion ban to be enacted, first such ruling since Dobbs

The case, known as Moyle v. United States (Mike Moyle is the speaker of the Idaho House), has major implications on everything from what emergency care is available in states with abortion bans to how hospitals operate in Idaho. Here's a summary of what's at stake.

1. Idaho physicians warn patients are being harmed

Under Idaho's abortion law , the medical exception only applies when a doctor judges that "the abortion was necessary to prevent the death of the pregnant woman." (There is also an exception to the Idaho abortion ban in cases of rape or incest, only in the first trimester of the pregnancy, if the person files a police report.)

In a filing with the court , a group of 678 physicians in Idaho described cases in which women facing serious pregnancy complications were either sent home from the hospital or had to be transferred out of state for care. "It's been just a few months now that Idaho's law has been in effect – six patients with medical emergencies have already been transferred out of state for [pregnancy] termination," Dr. Jim Souza, chief physician executive of St. Luke's Health System in Idaho, told reporters on a press call last week.

Those delays and transfers can have consequences. For example, Dr. Emily Corrigan described a patient in court filings whose water broke too early, which put her at risk of infection. After two weeks of being dismissed while trying to get care, the patient went to Corrigan's hospital – by that time, she showed signs of infection and had lost so much blood she needed a transfusion. Corrigan added that without receiving an abortion, the patient could have needed a limb amputation or a hysterectomy – in other words, even if she didn't die, she could have faced life-long consequences to her health.

Attorneys for Idaho defend its abortion law, arguing that "every circumstance described by the administration's declarations involved life-threatening circumstances under which Idaho law would allow an abortion."

Ryan Bangert, senior attorney for the Christian legal powerhouse Alliance Defending Freedom, which is providing pro-bono assistance to the state of Idaho, says that "Idaho law does allow for physicians to make those difficult decisions when it's necessary to perform an abortion to save the life of the mother," without waiting for patients to become sicker and sicker.

Still, Dr. Sara Thomson, an OB-GYN in Boise, says difficult calls in the hospital are not hypothetical or even rare. "In my group, we're seeing this happen about every month or every other month where this state law complicates our care," she says. Four patients have sued the state in a separate case arguing that the narrow medical exception harmed them.

"As far as we know, we haven't had a woman die as a consequence of this law, but that is really on the top of our worry list of things that could happen because we know that if we watch as death is approaching and we don't intervene quickly enough, when we decide finally that we're going to intervene to save her life, it may be too late," she says.

2. Hospitals are closing units and struggling to recruit doctors

Labor and delivery departments are expensive for hospitals to operate. Idaho already had a shortage of providers, including OB-GYNS. Hospital administrators now say the Idaho abortion law has led to an exodus of maternal care providers from the state, which has a population of 2 million people.

Three rural hospitals in Idaho have closed their labor-and-delivery units since the abortion law took effect. "We are seeing the expansion of what's called obstetrical deserts here in Idaho," said Brian Whitlock, president and CEO of the Idaho Hospital Association.

Since Idaho's abortion law took effect, nearly one in four OB-GYNs have left the state or retired, according to a report from the Idaho Physician Well-Being Action Collaborative. The report finds the loss of doctors who specialize in high-risk pregnancies is even more extreme – five of nine full time maternal-fetal medicine specialists have left Idaho.

Administrators say they aren't able to recruit new providers to fill those positions. "Since [the abortion law's] enactment, St. Luke's has had markedly fewer applicants for open physician positions, particularly in obstetrics. And several out-of-state candidates have withdrawn their applications upon learning of the challenges of practicing in Idaho, citing [the law's] enactment and fear of criminal penalties," reads an amicus brief from St. Luke's health system in support of the federal government.

"Prior to the abortion decision, we already ranked 50th in number of physicians per capita – we were already a strained state," says Thomson, the doctor in Boise. She's experienced the loss of OB-GYN colleagues first hand. "I had a partner retire right as the laws were changing and her position has remained open – unfilled now for almost two years – so my own personal group has been short-staffed," she says.

ADF's Bangert says he's skeptical of the assertion that the abortion law is responsible for this exodus of doctors from Idaho. "I would be very surprised if Idaho's abortion law is the sole or singular cause of any physician shortage," he says. "I'm very suspicious of any claims of causality."

3. Justices could weigh in on fetal "personhood"

The state of Idaho's brief argues that EMTALA actually requires hospitals "to protect and care for an 'unborn child,'" an argument echoed in friend-of-the-court briefs from the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops and a group of states from Indiana to Wyoming that also have restrictive abortion laws. They argue that abortion can't be seen as a stabilizing treatment if one patient dies as a result.

Thomson is also Catholic, and she says the idea that, in an emergency, she is treating two patients – the fetus and the mother – doesn't account for clinical reality. "Of course, as obstetricians we have a passion for caring for both the mother and the baby, but there are clinical situations where the mom's health or life is in jeopardy, and no matter what we do, the baby is going to be lost," she says.

The Idaho abortion law uses the term "unborn child" as opposed to the words "embryo" or "fetus" – language that implies the fetus has the same rights as other people.

Shots - Health News

The science of ivf: what to know about alabama's 'extrauterine children' ruling.

Mary Ziegler , a legal historian at University of California - Davis, who is writing a book on fetal personhood, describes it as the "North Star" of the anti-abortion rights movement. She says this case will be the first time the Supreme Court justices will be considering a statute that uses that language.

"I think we may get clues about the future of bigger conflicts about fetal personhood," she explains, depending on how the justices respond to this idea. "Not just in the context of this statute or emergency medical scenarios, but in the context of the Constitution."

ADF has dismissed the idea that this case is an attempt to expand fetal rights. "This case is, at root, a question about whether or not the federal government can affect a hostile takeover of the practice of medicine in all 50 states by misinterpreting a long-standing federal statute to contain a hidden nationwide abortion mandate," Bangert says.

4. The election looms large

Ziegler suspects the justices will allow Idaho's abortion law to remain as is. "The Supreme Court has let Idaho's law go into effect, which suggests that the court is not convinced by the Biden administration's arguments, at least at this point," she notes.

Trump backed a federal abortion ban as president. Now, he says he wouldn't sign one

Whatever the decision, it will put abortion squarely back in the national spotlight a few months before the November election. "It's a reminder on the political side of things, that Biden and Trump don't really control the terms of the debate on this very important issue," Zielger observes. "They're going to be things put on everybody's radar by other actors, including the Supreme Court."

The justices will hear arguments in the case on Wednesday morning. A decision is expected by late June or early July.

Correction April 23, 2024

An earlier version of this story did not mention the rape and incest exception to Idaho's abortion ban. A person who reports rape or incest to police can end a pregnancy in Idaho in the first trimester.

• Abortion rights
• Supreme Court

• Election 2024
• Entertainment
• Newsletters
• Photography
• Personal Finance
• AP Investigations
• AP Buyline Personal Finance
• AP Buyline Shopping
• Press Releases
• Israel-Hamas War
• Russia-Ukraine War
• Global elections
• Asia Pacific
• Latin America
• Middle East
• Election Results
• Delegate Tracker
• AP & Elections
• Auto Racing
• 2024 Paris Olympic Games
• Movie reviews
• Book reviews
• Personal finance
• Financial Markets
• Business Highlights
• Financial wellness
• Artificial Intelligence
• Social Media

Olympic refugee athlete Lohalith suspended in the team’s 3rd doping case ahead of Paris Games

FILE - Anjelina Lohalith, a native of South Sudan and member of the Refugee Olympic Team, speaks during a press conference in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, Sunday, July 31, 2016. Anjelina Lohalith, a third runner on the Refugee Olympic Team has been suspended for a positive doping test, announced Tuesday, April 30, 2024 two days before the IOC confirms its selection of athletes for the Paris Games. (AP Photo/Peter Morgan, File)

• Copy Link copied

GENEVA (AP) — A third runner on the Refugee Olympic Team has been suspended for a positive doping test, with the announcement coming two days before the IOC confirms its selection of athletes for the Paris Games.

Anjelina Nadai Lohalith was notified of her alleged use of the banned heart medication trimetazidine and provisionally banned, track and field’s Athletics Integrity Unit said . It gave no timetable for a disciplinary case.

Lohalith, who fled war in South Sudan as a child to a refugee camp in Kenya, was being funded with an International Olympic Committee scholarship to prepare for her third straight Summer Games.

The 31-year-old athlete ran in the 1,500 meters for the refugee team at the previous two Summer Games, when it debuted in 2016 in Rio de Janeiro and at the Tokyo Olympics held in 2021.

The IOC and UNHCR, the United Nations refugee agency, have scheduled a media event on Thursday to finalize the selection of the refugee team for the Paris Olympics being held July 26-Aug. 11.

Lohalith has represented the refugee team at three track and field world championships and was among 29 Olympic Refugee Team members in Tokyo.

UNHCR has said 75 athletes in 14 sports have had scholarships for Paris. Those athletes come from 12 different countries and now live in 24 host countries.

One scholarship athlete originally from Morocco, 3,000-meter steeplechase runner Fouad Idbafdil, was banned for three years in December after testing positive for the endurance-boosting hormone EPO.

In March, another 1,500-meter runner originally from South Sudan, Dominic Lokolong Atiol, also was provisionally suspended for a positive test for trimetazidine.

The medication, known as TMZ, also was found in high-profile positive tests given in 2021 by Russian figure skater Kamila Valieva and 23 Chinese swimmers who were preparing for the Tokyo Olympics.

Valieva’s case was revealed during the 2022 Beijing Winter Games where she had helped the Russians win team event gold. Valieva was later disqualified , banned for four years and the Russians downgraded to bronze with the United States upgraded to gold. That case is ongoing with further appeals pending.

The Chinese swimming case was detailed April 20 in investigative reports by the New York Times and German broadcaster ARD.

The swimmers were not suspended, and three went on to win gold medals in Tokyo, because the World Anti-Doping Agency accepted explanations and evidence provided by Chinese authorities that the athletes were contaminated by traces of the drug in a hotel kitchen.

AP Olympics coverage: https://apnews.com/hub/2024-paris-olympic-games