00:00Let's go to our political face-off. Raise the big question.
00:02Is this a political witch-hunt by the Enforcement Directorate, as the Congress claims?
00:07Is the process the punishment in most Enforcement Directorate cases?
00:12Is the Congress really right to claim vindication?
00:15Or is it, as the BJP says, no clean chit for the Congress and the Gandhis?
00:20Those are some of the questions I'll raise.
00:22I'm joined by Sanju Verma of the BJP's National Spokesperson,
00:26and Mahima Singh of the Congress.
00:28I appreciate you joining us on the political face-off.
00:30Sanju Verma, it appears that the Delhi court's refusal to take cognizance
00:35of the National Herald money laundering case by the ED against the Gandhis
00:39is clearly a setback for the Enforcement Directorate.
00:42It gives the Congress more ammunition to say this entire case,
00:46which is based on a private complaint of November 2012,
00:49is simply being used as political vendetta.
00:54You know, Rajdeep, a few things.
00:56First and foremost, the Delhi police has already filed an FIR on the 16th of December 2025.
01:04And going forward, now the trial will take place on the basis of not a private complaint
01:09filed by Mr. Subramaniam Swamy, but on the basis of the FIR filed by Delhi police, point number one.
01:16Point number two, the Delhi High Court not taking cognizance is procedural.
01:20It is not based on merits of the case.
01:22Point number three, just like they say that if you're out on bail, you're neither innocent nor guilty,
01:28simply not taking cognizance does not mean that Sonia Gandhi and Rahul Gandhi have been given a clean chit.
01:34It simply means that Sonia Gandhi and Rahul Gandhi will continue to face trial,
01:39albeit on the basis of the new FIR, which has been filed by the Enforcement Directorate.
01:44Ma'am, a new FIR comes in, no, no, just a minute.
01:47A new FIR comes in 13 years after the original private complaint.
01:51It almost seems that you did, that the ED didn't have enough to back its original charge of money laundering.
01:57Now comes with a new FIR based on what the Delhi Economic Offenses Wing has done.
02:00It almost seems as if the original case is falling apart 13 years after the private complaint.
02:07You know, Rajdeep, you said at the start, you don't want a tutu mehmeh.
02:12But I barely spoke for 30 seconds and you could not control yourself.
02:16You gave it to the temptation of interjecting me.
02:19Please let me complete very humbly.
02:21Please let me finish.
02:22I just want to tell you, I want to tell Abhishek Manu Singhvi and your audience,
02:29which is the biggest stakeholder in these debates,
02:32does the charge of conspiracy, criminal conspiracy at that white section 120B of the IPC,
02:41has that been dismissed by the High Court?
02:44No.
02:45Under 403 of the IPC, misappropriation of property by Sonia and Rahul Gandhi,
02:50has the charge been dismissed by the Delhi High Court?
02:53No.
02:54The case of cheating under Section 420 of the IPC,
02:58has the Delhi High Court dismissed the charge?
03:00No.
03:01And more importantly, under Section 406 of the IPC,
03:05criminal breach of trust, which is a predicate offence,
03:09has the Delhi High Court dismissed that?
03:12No.
03:12Because I want to end by just saying one thing.
03:14In the PMLA under Section 2 and 3,
03:17if the charge is a predicate offence,
03:22then it automatically becomes non-vailable and cognizable.
03:27So, the Gandhis actually are going to see...
03:30Ma'am, ma'am, I have to go...
03:32I am waiting to see what happens.
03:34I have been waiting.
03:35Ma'am, I have heard you now.
03:37I have heard you patiently.
03:38I have been waiting, in fact, patiently for 13 years
03:40to see this case reach its logical conclusion.
03:43But Mahima Singh, respond to it.
03:44I asked this also earlier to Dr. Singhvi.
03:46There's a sense that,
03:47is the Congress being premature in celebrating,
03:51given the fact that the merits of the case
03:52will continue to be argued,
03:54and importantly, the ED says it will carry on
03:56with the investigation now based on this new FIR.
04:00How do you respond to what you heard
04:02just now from Sanju Verma?
04:03Jai Hind, and I think Dr. Singhvi had responded
04:09to your query befittingly.
04:11But every time I see BJP spokespersons
04:14speak on these issues,
04:16it seems like they are the spokespersons
04:18of the ED and EC
04:19and the other institutions' constitutional bodies,
04:23which the BJP has, you know,
04:26in self-proclamation,
04:28they have assumed these institutions,
04:30the precious constitutional institutions of this country
04:34to be their pawns.
04:35But it's only a matter of time.
04:37I must say that today,
04:39a new era has begun.
04:41You know, by this order
04:43that has come out from a district court,
04:45I would say that end of Vendetta politics has begun,
04:48and I can say it with utter confidence.
04:50And yes, our celebration is not premature.
04:53We must ask a few questions today of ourselves
04:56and of those who have been claiming
04:58that the Congress leaders are involved in these cases.
05:04Now, we must ask that why was the BJP questioning
05:07when we came out in protest,
05:09when our leaders were summoned?
05:11Because now the district court
05:13has actually refused to take cognizance
05:16of the proceedings itself.
05:18Mallefied is being seen outrightly.
05:20We must also question why a complainant,
05:23The court did not use the word Mallefied, ma'am.
05:26That's your word.
05:26Court did not use the word Mallefied.
05:28That's your word.
05:29Court has said on procedural grounds.
05:31But the court has refused to take cognizance
05:35of this case after 12 years.
05:37And at whose cost?
05:38Rajdeep, we must ask that question.
05:41At the cost of public time and money.
05:44We must also question
05:45what should be the fate of complainants
05:48like Dr. Subramanian Swami,
05:50who came to the court
05:51and then got disinterested in his own way?
05:53You know, this can't be a monologue.
05:55You know, you know...
05:56Wait, ma'am.
05:56You have to be patient.
05:58This is the frivolity of the BJP spokespersons.
06:01They want all the discipline.
06:02You know, Rajdeep has given you
06:04a little time.
06:05This is not fair, Rajdeep.
06:06I am giving equal time.
06:08I am giving equal time,
06:09Sanju Varmar, equal time.
06:10And 30 seconds more.
06:12Mahima Singh, 30 seconds more.
06:13Complete your argument.
06:14I am giving you 30 seconds more.
06:16You see, the opposition
06:17has been claiming
06:18that there is vendetta politics,
06:20that there are 95% cases
06:22against the Congress Party,
06:24against the opposition parties,
06:26of which the conviction rate
06:27is very well known.
06:29So I think, as I said earlier,
06:31this marks the commencement
06:32of a new era,
06:33the end of vendetta politics,
06:34because now the courts will teach,
06:36the judiciary will teach
06:37a lesson to the BJP,
06:39and the truth will prevail,
06:40as we have always maintained.
06:42Okay, you're saying...
06:42What will happen at the end?
06:43You're saying based on this one verdict,
06:47an era, a new era,
06:48a new dawn will begin.
06:49But let me put some facts to you,
06:51to both of you and to our viewers.
06:53ED's PMLA probes,
06:54June 1, 2014 to October 10, 2025.
06:57Number of cases, 6,312.
07:00Convictions, 120.
07:02Closure reports, 93 since 2019.
07:05This is based on a government's reply
07:07in Lok Sabha.
07:07So what we are seeing is
07:08a very low conviction rate.
07:11We're seeing cases drag on,
07:12Sanju Verma, for years.
07:13The process is the punishment.
07:15And the fact is,
07:16Mahima Singh is right,
07:17more than 90% of the cases
07:19against opposition leaders
07:20when it comes to PMLA.
07:21In that context,
07:22what the court has done
07:23will, as I repeat,
07:25give more ammunition
07:25to the opposition to say,
07:27BJP is engaging in vendetta politics,
07:30using the ED as its weapon.
07:33You know, Rajdeep,
07:34you gave a free run
07:35to the Congress Party.
07:37Now, I don't want you
07:38to interject me,
07:39because you have this very bad habit
07:40of giving lectures
07:41to the BJP on patience.
07:43Sanju Verma showed decorum.
07:45I'm going to show decorum
07:46in patience,
07:47provided you behave
07:48like a neutral journalist.
07:49I want to ask one thing.
07:51Have the Gandhis been acquitted?
07:54No.
07:54Have the Gandhis been given
07:55a clean sheet
07:56by the Delhi High Court?
07:57No.
07:58And you forgot to mention
07:59a very important thing,
08:00Radheep Sardesai,
08:01that the magistrate had said,
08:04Sonia and Rahul Gandhi
08:05should be given
08:05a copy of the FIR.
08:07The Delhi High Court said
08:09that Sonia and Rahul Gandhi
08:11need not get a copy
08:12of the FIR from the Delhi police
08:14because this is an ongoing investigation.
08:16Very quickly now,
08:17wait for 30 seconds
08:18without, you know, interjecting.
08:21Did the Congress Party
08:23give an interest-free,
08:25collateral-free loan
08:26to the Gandhis?
08:27Yes.
08:28Did the Gandhis fail
08:29to repay 90.25 crore?
08:32Yes.
08:33Did the Gandhis
08:33take 76% stake
08:35in associated journals
08:37via a company
08:38called Young Indian?
08:39Yes.
08:40Did the Gandhis
08:41convert loan
08:42into equity?
08:43Yes.
08:44And did the Gandhis
08:45do all this
08:46within the ambit of law?
08:47No.
08:47You have not studied
08:48corporate finance.
08:49All of this,
08:50all of what you've just said,
08:52madam, madam,
08:53madam, madam,
08:54madam,
08:54madam,
08:54all of which you've just said,
08:56all of which you've just said,
08:57I've heard
08:58for the last 13 years now.
09:00Can I finish?
09:01The truth of the matter is,
09:01if this was a money laundering case,
09:04where money laundering
09:04was proven by now,
09:06it should have gone to trial
09:07and conviction.
09:08Can I finish?
09:08That's my limited point.
09:09You've been saying this
09:10and I've been hearing this
09:11for the last 13 years.
09:13No, please.
09:14The point which is made,
09:15you'll have to prove
09:16the money laundering.
09:18Can I please finish?
09:19Or profiteering?
09:20Ratip, sir,
09:21please tell me.
09:22Yes,
09:23let me just say one thing to you.
09:25What has Abhishek Manu Singh
09:26been saying?
09:27He has been saying
09:28Young Indian
09:28is a Section 8 company.
09:31Earlier,
09:31it was called
09:31a Section 25 company
09:33under which
09:34the directors
09:35do not get any dividends.
09:37The directors
09:37are not liable
09:39to get any salaries.
09:41But what Abhishek Manu Singh
09:42does not tell you,
09:44please read
09:44the 117-page verdict
09:46of the Delhi High Court,
09:47that Young Indian
09:48slash Associated
09:50Journals Limited
09:51is not a non-profit company
09:53to start with.
09:55Has AJM
09:56or has Young Indian
09:57ever established
09:58a school,
09:59a college?
10:00What kind of social
10:01objectives were achieved?
10:03Have they done
10:03any charitable work?
10:05That is a question
10:05Rajdeep Sardesai
10:06will not answer.
10:08Tell me,
10:09I know what
10:10Azeem Prenji Foundation
10:11has done.
10:12I know what
10:12Charitable Work
10:13Reliance Foundation
10:14has done.
10:15Tell me,
10:15the charitable work
10:16done by Young Indian
10:18is appropriating
10:205,000 crore worth
10:21of property
10:22by paying
10:2350 lakhs
10:24as check.
10:25That too,
10:25only a book
10:26can do.
10:26The Gandhi's way
10:28of doing charity?
10:30Tell me,
10:30I want to ask you
10:31as a journalist.
10:32You keep talking
10:3212 years,
10:3312 years.
10:33Madam,
10:34I have heard you
10:34now.
10:34What is the charitable
10:35work done by Young Indian
10:37policy?
10:38What is the charitable
10:39work done by Young Indian?
10:40All of this
10:40over the last 14 years
10:42should have led
10:43by now surely
10:43to some kind of
10:45trial and conviction
10:46which has not
10:47happened yet.
10:47But Mahima Singh,
10:48the fact is
10:49the ED claims
10:50that the overall
10:51proceedings of crime
10:52exceed 5,000 crores
10:53based on the value
10:55of which 2,000 crores
10:57represents the value
10:58of Associate Journal
10:59Limited's assets.
11:00The probe agency
11:01says it's attached
11:02661 crore
11:03of immovable properties,
11:0590.2 crores
11:06worth of AGL shares.
11:07They claim
11:08based on a 2017
11:09income tax order
11:10that there are
11:11414 crores
11:13in alleged tax evasion
11:14linked to these assets.
11:15All of this
11:16has to still
11:17go through
11:18a process of law.
11:19I say
11:20the process
11:20may well be
11:21a punishment
11:22but at the same time
11:23there is no
11:24clean chin.
11:26A quick final answer.
11:28And we have not
11:29denied participating.
11:31We have
11:31happily,
11:32we have
11:32duly participated
11:34in the process
11:34of law.
11:35However,
11:35the BJP
11:36spokesperson's
11:37naivety
11:37is pitiable,
11:39Rajdeep,
11:39I must say.
11:40Because one question
11:41that has raised
11:43eyebrows today
11:44after this verdict
11:44came out
11:45from a Delhi
11:45court is
11:46if
11:47ED could not
11:48have proceeded
11:48without an
11:49FIR under
11:50the PMLA,
11:51then at whose
11:52behest had
11:53this case
11:54proceeded over
11:54the last 13
11:55years?
11:55Number one.
11:56Now,
11:56the other
11:57point of
11:59naivety in
12:00the BJP
12:00spokesperson's
12:01rhetoric was
12:03that she's
12:04talking about
12:05converting to
12:05equity.
12:06Let me remind
12:06her that
12:07converting debt
12:08to equity
12:08is a very
12:09common way
12:09to revive a
12:10company.
12:10And let me
12:11give her an
12:11example.
12:12The government
12:12of India did
12:13that.
12:13The government
12:13of India,
12:14please,
12:15please,
12:16let me not
12:16make you
12:16take it.
12:17She did not
12:17interrupt you.
12:18Sanju Varma put
12:19her voice up.
12:19She did not
12:22interrupt you.
12:23The government
12:24of India,
12:24Rajdeep,
12:25the naiv BJP
12:27spokesperson must
12:28remember the
12:29government of
12:30India itself did
12:31the same thing
12:32with Vodafone.
12:33Banks have done
12:34it with jet
12:35airways.
12:36And unlike
12:36those firms,
12:37I must remind
12:38that AJL's
12:38restructuring led
12:39to resurrection
12:40of National
12:41Herod,
12:42Navjeevan and
12:43Kwame Awaaz,
12:44which are still
12:44running as
12:45rightful newspapers
12:47and are doing
12:47good service to
12:48the society.
12:49So the BJP
12:50spokesperson must
12:51educate herself
12:52before speaking
12:53on such
12:54critical matters.
12:55She must answer
12:56critical questions
12:57before bringing
12:58the rhetoric
12:59to the surface.
13:00There are still
13:00questions, of
13:01course, over the
13:02relationship between
13:03young India and
13:04AJL.
13:04All of these
13:05questions, of
13:05course, will
13:06still continue to
13:07be part of an
13:08ED investigation.
13:09The problem,
13:10of course, is
13:10it's now 13
13:11years, I
13:12repeat, 13
13:12years since
13:13Dr. Subramaniam's
13:14private complaint
13:15on the base of
13:16which originally
13:17the ED investigation
13:18was carried out.
13:19My hair has
13:20grown grey by
13:20then and we
13:21would hope that
13:23our legal system
13:24would at least
13:25ensure either way
13:26that we reached a
13:27finite conclusion.
13:28In the absence of
13:29that, we will
13:30always suggest or
13:31there will be the
13:32suggestion that
13:33this is a classic
13:35case where the
13:36process becomes
13:37part of the
13:38punishment.
13:38Sajju Verma,
13:39Mahima Singh for
13:40joining me on my
13:41face-off.
13:41Thank you very
13:42much.
13:42Thank you very much.
13:43Thank you very much.
13:43You
Comments