New Delhi: Delhi’sRouse Avenue Court has reserved its decision on whether to take cognizance of the Enforcement Directorate’s (ED) prosecution complaint in the ‘National Herald’ case. Special Judge Vishal Gogne stated that the order will be pronounced on July 29.

During the hearing, ED, represented by Additional Solicitor General SV Raju, alleged that donors to the Congress Party were misled and, in some cases, rewarded with political tickets. The agency rejected claims by the Gandhi family that they had no control over Associated Journals Limited (AJL), asserting that Young Indian Limited, which later acquired AJL, was a front to facilitate property transfer worth ₹2,000 crore by paying only ₹50 lakh. The ED further claimed that after the acquisition, the decision not to resume publication of the ‘National Herald’ raised suspicions about the intent behind the takeover.

On the defence side, senior advocate RS Cheema, appearing for Rahul Gandhi, argued that the Congress did not attempt to sell AJL but rather aimed to preserve its legacy. He said AJL was founded in 1937 by key Congress leaders and had close historical ties to the party. Cheema questioned why the ED had not presented AJL’s Memorandum of Association, which outlines its political affiliations.

Earlier, senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, representing Sonia Gandhi, called the ED’s case “surprising” and claimed that it lacked any reference to property transactions, a key requirement in a money laundering case. He argued that Young Indian is a not-for-profit company and that its role was to relieve AJL of its debts, a common financial practice.

The ED’s arguments concluded on July 3, with ASG Raju reiterating that the case represented classic money laundering, accusing Young Indian of being created solely to launder criminal proceeds under the control of the Gandhi family.

The ED had filed its prosecution complaint on April 15 under Sections 44 and 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, naming Sonia Gandhi, Rahul Gandhi, Sam Pitroda, and four others as accused. The case originated from a complaint by BJP leader Subramanian Swamy, who alleged that the transfer of AJL’s assets — particularly the ₹1,600 crore Herald House building in Delhi — was part of a conspiracy to gain control of property meant for journalistic use. Swamy argued that the land was allotted for newspaper operations and cannot legally be used for commercial purposes.

The court’s decision on cognizance is scheduled for July 29.