After a long time BJP leader Subramanian Swamy gave a reason to cherish for his twitter army. Social media is over-loaded with various posts and trending, assuming that one day Sonia Gandhi and her son Rahul Gandhi will be arrested. With high profile lawyers and Constitutional experts to defend, no soul can do any harm to the ‘so called’ first family. Many times, it has been proven that no arrows in Swamy’s arsenal had harmed either Jayalalitha or Sonia Gandhi. Swamy is wasting his time and energy on them. He had filed a complaint before the trial court in 2012, alleging that Congress leaders were involved in cheating and breach of trust in the acquisition of Associated Journals Ltd (AJL) by Young Indian Pvt Ltd (YIL), as assets worth crores of rupees had been transferred to YIL.
Swamy has alleged that YIL, which has Congress president Sonia Gandhi and vice president Rahul Gandhi on its board of directors, had “taken over” over the assets of the defunct print media outlet in a “malicious” manner to gain profit and assets worth over Rs. 2,000 crore. Apart from the Gandhis, Congress treasurer Motilal Vora, general secretary Oscar Fernandes, journalist Suman Dubey and technocrat Sam Pitroda were also named in the case. Swamy has alleged that YIL had paid just Rs. 50 lakh to obtain the right to recover Rs. 90.25 crore that AJL had owed to the Congress party, given earlier as a loan to start the newspaper. According to documents, 76 per cent of shareholding of YIL is with Sonia Gandhi and Rahul Gandhi, while the remaining 24 per cent vests in the others named in the case. The complaint has also alleged that the loan given to AJL was “illegal”, as it had been taken from party funds.
The Delhi court had examined four complainant witnesses during the pre-summoning stage. The complainant witnesses examined were Subramanian Swamy, the complainant in the case, R Venkatesh, practising chartered accountant, Gulab Chand, an official from the Office of the Registrar of Companies, NCT of Delhi and Haryana, and J Gopikrishnan, journalist with The Pioneer. The pre-summoning evidence was closed and arguments were heard on the point of summoning of those named in the complaint. On June 26, 2014, the court summoned Sonia Gandhi, Rahul Gandhi, Motilal Vora, Oscar Fernandes, Suman Dubey and Sam Pitroda.
While summoning them, Metropolitan Magistrate Gomati Manocha said that from the complaint and the evidence so far, “it appears that YIL 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”. However, the court had noted that this was “only the stage of summoning”, and when the accused persons appear before the court, “they shall be at liberty to refute the allegations of the complainant, cross-examine the complainant’s witnesses, and to lead evidence in their defence.”
The trial court had asked all accused to appear before it on August 7, 2014. On July 30, 2014, however, the Congress leaders moved the High Court which stayed the summons. The Congress has claimed that YIL had been created “with an aim of charity” and was not receiving any profit. They also claimed that there was “no illegality” in the transaction, as it was “merely a commercial transaction” for transferring shares of the company. It also raised objections to the complaint filed by Swamy, labelling it as “politically motivated”.
The judgment of the High Court has noted that the “probity of the legendary national political party” was “at stake” in the case, as the office bearers of the party held the funds in trust. The Bench dismissed the appeals filed by the Congress leaders, observing that prima facie the case “evidenced criminality”. The court has also raised questions regarding the legality of the initial loan granted to AJL by the Congress party. It has also dismissed the objections raised against Swamy’s involvement, stating that locus standi “cannot be restricted” in corruption cases. Meanwhile, the Parliament was disrupted and adjourned. When there is a legal case, then it should be fought like any other citizen. By disrupting Parliament, you are wasting tax payers’ money. Politicians should face a legal proceeding as any other citizen and set an example rather than wasting the country’s wealth by disrupting the house. Sonia Gandhi said that she is Indira’s daughter in law. India’s legal system is same for all, let it be Rajeev Gandhi’s wife or somebody else. Her mother-in-law imposed Emergency, when she was found guilty and unseated from Rai Bareilly Parliament Seat by Justice Jagmohan Lal Sinha of Allahabad High Court. Interestingly, along with her “prodigy”, she has nothing to impose except to argument the issues like Intolerance, returning of awards, generating ruckus in parliament and stalling its proceedings, creating hurdles in passing of important legislations etc.
The High Court has also declined to grant Rahul and Sonia Gandhi exemption from personal appearance before trial court in the matter. In the order, it says: “In any case, by no stretch of imagination, it can be said that no case for summoning petitioners as accused in the complaint in question is made out. Questionable conduct of petitioners needs to be properly examined at the charge stage to find out the truth and so, these criminal proceedings cannot be thwarted at this initial stage.”
Apart from the Gandhis, Congress treasurer Motilal Vora, family friend Suman Dubey, and party leader Oscar Fernandes had moved the high court for quashing of summons to them by a trial court on Swamy’s complaint. The high court had earlier stayed the criminal proceedings in the trial court. Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for Sonia Gandhi, sought quashing of the proceedings initiated by a lower court against her, and the others, saying the complaint made by Swamy against them were only “allegations without any supporting proof”.
They have since 1974 made law courts their fiefdom and anyone giving a dissent judgement becomes target of their intolerance. And of course, they pay their way to get things done including how the constitution of India should be interpreted. The disruption of parliament under false pretenses through manipulation is one example why India should remain under their thumbs. Let’s see where the case will see twists and turns.