File photo of Congress president Sonia Gandhi with her son Rahul Gandhi.
Justice Sunil Gaur of the Delhi High Court has raised some questions about the Congress party's action of assigning to a charitable company a debt of Rs 90.25 crore owed to it by the publishers of National Herald.
"It is not a mere commercial transaction. It has wider ramifications. How a political party behaves is everyone's concern. It is precisely an act of a political party which is under scanner here," the judge observed as he resumed hearing in the challenge filed by Sonia Gandhi, Rahul Gandhi and some others against a trial court order in a complaint filed by BJP leader Subramanian Swamy.
The case came back to Justice Gaur's court after it was posted before another bench under the roster system. The Gandhis and others moved the High Court yesterday opposing a "different treatment" being meted out to the case in violation of the practice and procedures of the Court by transferring a part-heard matter.
The party had loaned Rs 90.25 crore to Associated Journals Ltd. (AJL) and on December 28, 2010 it had assigned this debt to Young Indian Ltd (YIL), the charitable company, for Rs 50 lakh, which, according to Mr Swamy, amounted to breach of trust and cheating.
On his complaint, a trial court had issued summons to Congress President Sonia Gandhi, her son Rahul Gandhi, and five others, including YIL. Justice Gaur made the observations while hearing arguments in the petitions filed by Sonia Gandhi, Rahul Gandhi, YIL and four others-Congress treasurer Moti Lal Vora, General Secretary Oscar Fernandes, Suman Dubey and Sam Pitroda-challenging the summons issued by the trial judge.
The judge's observation came during arguments on the issue of whether Mr Swamy had the locus to question the transaction of Congress party.
Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for Sonia Gandhi, argued that Mr Swamy did not have a locus to file a complaint of breach of trust or cheating as he was not a victim.
Mr Sibal also said that the money loaned to AJL by Congress was money that was donated to the party and it was free to use those funds as it pleased. The party could have also written off the loan, he added.
He said the giving of loans to AJL by the Congress was an action which was in consonance with the objectives of the party and in line with objectives of AJL.
Referring to Mr Swamy's contention that the Representation of the People Act and the constitution of the party do not provide for giving loans and that the Congress has violated the law, he said "Where is the logic in this? Absence of a provision does not mean prohibition. In a democracy what is not prohibited can be done."
Senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, appearing for Rahul Gandhi, also agreed with Mr Sibal on these points and added that though there was a change of shareholding when YIL was assigned the debt, there was no change in ownership of the assets of AJL and therefore, there was "no entrustment".
He also said that to attract the charge of cheating, there has to be an "identified victim" who has been deceived, and Swamy was not such a victim.
They also said that the offences the Congress leaders were accused of were compoundable. "So how does he (Mr Swamy) come in?," he queried.
Besides, Mr Sibal and Mr Singhvi, senior advocate Harin Raval also submitted similar arguments on behalf of Mr Vora, Mr Fernandes and YIL.
The court, thereafter, listed the matter for further hearing tomorrow when it will hear arguments on behalf of Mr Pitroda, Mr Dubey and Mr Swamy.
The trial court had on June 26 last year summoned Sonia Gandhi, Rahul Gandhi, Mr Vora, Mr Fernandes, Mr Dubey and Mr Pitroda to appear before it on August 7, 2014 on Swamy's complaint.
The Congress leaders had, thereafter, on July 30, 2014, moved the high court which had stayed the summons on August 6 last year.
Further which, on December 15, 2014, the court had stayed the summons till final disposal of the petitions.