English हिन्दी
Connect with us

India News

SC Defers Hearing On NIA Petition Against Gautam Navlakha

The Supreme Court on Friday asked the National Investigation Agency (NIA) to provide Gautam Navlakha’s Counsel with a copy of its petition, while adjourning the matter till July 6. The interim order of the Court ordering stay on the Delhi High Court’s order will continue till then.

Published

on

Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Friday asked the National Investigation Agency (NIA) to provide Gautam Navlakha’s Counsel with a copy of its petition, while adjourning the matter till July 6. The interim order of the Court ordering stay on the Delhi High Court’s order will continue till then.

A division Bench of Justices Arun Mishra and Abdul Nazeer issued the direction while hearing a petition filed by the NIA challenging an order of the Delhi High Court dated May 27, that had asked for a record of proceedings before Special NIA Courts in Delhi & Mumbai based on which Gautam Navlakha was transferred from Delhi to Mumbai

During the hearing today, Counsel appearing for petitioner Navlakha, Shadan Farasat insisted on getting a copy of NIA petition. ASG Aman Lekhi appearing for NIA submitted that the Supreme Court has no territorial jurisdiction to call for records.

Lekhi added that NIA did not act in haste while moving Navlakha to Mumbai. Navlakha had surrendered in Delhi on April 14 but could not be moved to Mumbai due to lockdown, and was moved only after necessary permission was obtained from the NIA court in Mumbai.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta today stated that the Order passed by the Delhi High Court is patently without jurisdiction. The Court has asked NIA to give a copy of the petition to Gautam Navlakha’s lawyer and has listed the matter on July 6.

The Apex Court in its last hearing had issued notice in the petition filed by the NIA against the Delhi High Court order dated May 27 passed by Justice Anup J.  Bhambani that had directed the NIA to furnish the complete copy of the proceedings in the matter pertaining to Navlakha’s bail plea. Navlakha had approached the Delhi High Court seeking interim bail on account of the COVID-19 pandemic.

The High Court on May 22 had issued notice to the NIA and had directed it to file its status report. Navlakha was, however, taken to Mumbai after warrant from a Mumbai court was produced, even before the matter could be taken up for hearing again. An application was filed on May 25 seeking an order to be passed for his transfer, which was allowed and he was taken to Mumbai on May 26.

Thereafter on May 27, the Delhi High court noted that the NIA had acted in “unseemly haste” to transfer Navlakha from Delhi to Mumbai and directed NIA to file a proper report with all the details related to his transfer, including the proceedings before the Mumbai court and his medical records

According to NIA, the Delhi High Court lacked the territorial jurisdiction to pass the impugned directions, since the case is registered at Mumbai, making the Special Court at Mumbai the competent court to hear the matter.

They have challenged jurisdiction of the Delhi High Court order stating that Gautam Navlakha was charged by an authority outside the territorial jurisdiction of the Delhi High Court because the remand order of the accused was passed by a Special NIA Judge in Mumbai.

According to NIA, the plea for interim bail filed by Gautam Navlakha before the Delhi HC was not maintainable since the charges against him include scheduled offences under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) and plea for bail can only be heard and decided by a Special NIA Court.

NIA, in its petition has also added according to Sections 13, 14, 16 and 21 of the NIA Act, it’s clear that an interim bail plea filed by persons accused under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, can be heard by Division Benches of High Courts, only in appeal against orders of Special NIA Judges. The plea before the Delhi High Court was therefore not maintainable. The NIA has also stated that they were right in transferring Navlakha from Delhi to Mumbai on the said date, considering the uncertainty of air travel after that on the account of pandemic, which is why they rightly moved an application before the competent jurisdictional Court i.e. Ld. NIA Special Court, Mumbai seeking transfer of Gautam Navlakha from Delhi to Mumbai in the aforesaid FIR.

India News

National Herald row reignites BJP-Congress face-off amid ED chargesheet

BJP has reignited its attack on the Gandhi family, accusing them of a corporate conspiracy in the National Herald case, while Congress dismisses the ED action as a political vendetta by the Modi government.

Published

on

A political slugfest has erupted once again between the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and the Congress following the Enforcement Directorate’s (ED) chargesheet naming Sonia Gandhi and Rahul Gandhi in the alleged money laundering case tied to the now-defunct National Herald newspaper. The BJP has termed the case a textbook example of “corporate conspiracy,” while the Congress has decried the move as an act of “political vendetta” by the Narendra Modi-led central government.

BJP questions Gandhi family’s property acquisition through Young India Ltd

Senior BJP leader Ravi Shankar Prasad, addressing a press briefing, accused the Congress of orchestrating a corporate arrangement to transfer property into the Gandhi family’s hands. He highlighted that in 2008, after the National Herald ceased publication, the Congress gave ₹90 crore to Associated Journals Limited (AJL), the newspaper’s publisher — a transaction he claims violates the norms as political parties are barred from funding private entities.

AJL reportedly failed to repay the loan, after which a non-profit entity, Young India Limited (YIL) — in which Sonia and Rahul Gandhi each hold a 38% stake — acquired the company’s shares and, by extension, its properties across several Indian cities. Mr. Prasad questioned YIL’s charitable work and highlighted that a token amount of ₹50 lakh was paid to AJL before the remaining loan was written off.

“This is the Gandhi model of development,” Prasad said, alleging that the arrangement enabled the Gandhi family to take control of property worth thousands of crores.

BJP expands attack to Robert Vadra

The BJP leader also took aim at Priyanka Gandhi Vadra’s husband, Robert Vadra, citing alleged irregularities in land transactions. “Another member buys land for ₹3 crore and sells it for ₹58 crore. The country should learn from this Gandhi model,” he remarked sarcastically.

Congress fights back, terms case a political smokescreen

The Congress has launched protests across the country in response to the BJP’s remarks and the ED’s chargesheet. Senior leader Pawan Khera likened the current actions to pre-Independence times, stating, “Back then, the British hated National Herald, the Gandhi family and the Congress — today the RSS has taken that place.”

Calling the case baseless, Congress leader Sachin Pilot said, “There has been no exchange of funds or transfer of property rights. This case is politically motivated, and the Modi government is attempting to silence the voice of the Opposition.” He affirmed that the party has full faith in the judiciary and will fight the case legally.

Continue Reading

India News

Priyanka Gandhi accompanies Robert Vadra to ED office for second day in Gurugram land probe

Robert Vadra, husband of Congress MP Priyanka Gandhi, appeared before the ED for the second day in the Gurugram land case.

Published

on

Robert Vadra Priyanka Gandhi

Congress MP Priyanka Gandhi Vadra accompanied her husband Robert Vadra to the Enforcement Directorate (ED) office on Wednesday as he appeared for questioning for the second consecutive day in connection with the Gurugram land case.

Mr Vadra, the brother-in-law of Lok Sabha Leader of Opposition Rahul Gandhi, was seen exchanging a hug with Ms Gandhi before entering the ED office. He is under scrutiny in a money laundering probe linked to a 2008 land deal in Manesar-Shikohpur area, now known as Sector 83 of Gurugram.

Focus of the probe: land deal from Congress tenure in Haryana

The investigation stems from a land transaction executed by Skylight Hospitality Pvt Ltd, a company in which Mr Vadra was formerly a director. In February 2008, Skylight purchased 3.5 acres of land from Onkareshwar Properties for ₹7.5 crore. At that time, Haryana was governed by a Congress-led administration under then Chief Minister Bhupinder Singh Hooda.

In September 2012, four years after the acquisition, Skylight sold the same land to real estate developer DLF for ₹58 crore. The deal later drew public attention after senior IAS officer Ashok Khemka, who was then heading the Land Consolidation and Land Records department in Haryana, cancelled the land mutation, citing violations of the State Consolidation Act and procedural discrepancies.

Haryana Police registered an FIR to examine the deal in 2018, further intensifying the legal scrutiny.

ED questions Vadra under PMLA

On Tuesday, Mr Vadra was questioned for nearly five hours by the ED under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), during which his statement was recorded. The businessman has consistently maintained that the case is part of a political vendetta and emphasized that he has cooperated fully with all investigative agencies, submitting numerous documents over the years.

Calling for a closure to what he described as a decades-old matter, Mr Vadra said cases like these should not be allowed to drag on indefinitely.

Continue Reading

India News

Congress slams PM Modi, Amit Shah after ED files chargesheet against Sonia Gandhi, Rahul Gandhi

The ED’s chargesheet has accused the Congress leaders of money laundering under Sections 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act.

Published

on

The Congress on Tuesday hit out at Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Union Home Minister Amit Shah after the Enforcement Directorate’s (ED) chargesheet against Sonia Gandhi, Rahul Gandhi, and others in the National Herald case.

Labelling it a blatant act of vendetta politics, the grand old party also condemned the seizure of the newspaper’s assets as a “state-sponsored crime disguised as justice,” vowing to fight back against what it calls an attempt to silence its leadership.

In a fiery statement on X, Congress general secretary in charge of communication Jairam Ramesh accused PM Modi and Shah of orchestrating a campaign of intimidation. “Filing chargesheets against Sonia Gandhi, Rahul Gandhi, and others is nothing but the politics of vendetta gone wild,” Ramesh posted. “Seizing National Herald’s assets is a mockery of the rule of law.”

Hitting out at Shah, the Congress leader accused him of going “completely berserk.” He asserted that the Indian National Congress and its leadership refuse to be silenced, stating: “Satyameva Jayate.”

The ED’s chargesheet has accused the Congress leaders of money laundering under Sections 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act.

Alongside Sonia and Rahul, it names Congress figures Suman Dubey and Sam Pitroda. Special Judge Vishal Gogne reviewed the document for cognisance, scheduling further proceedings for April 25, with the filing handled by ED’s special public prosecutor, N.K. Matta.

Ramesh asserted that the Congress remains undeterred, promising, “We will not be silenced, and the truth will triumph.” The chargesheet reignites a long-standing legal battle tied to the National Herald, a newspaper associated with the Congress since India’s independence era.

The Delhi Rouse Avenue Court has scheduled a hearing for arguments on the ongoing National Herald case for April 25, 2025.

During a recent session, the presiding judge stated, “The present prosecution complaint shall next be taken up for consideration on the aspect of cognisance before this court on April 25, 2025, when the special counsel for the ED and the investigating officer will ensure the production of case diaries for the court’s examination.”

The prosecution complaint, lodged under Sections 44 and 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) of 2002, pertains to allegations of money laundering, as outlined in Section 3, in conjunction with Section 70, and is punishable under Section 4 of the same act, as per the report.

This case has garnered significant attention, following a complaint filed by BJP leader Subramanian Swamy against Congress leaders Sonia and Rahul, their associated companies, and other individuals involved.

Continue Reading

Trending

© Copyright 2022 APNLIVE.com