00:00And my first guest tonight is the lawyer for the Gandhi, senior lawyer, four-time MP of the Congress Party, Abhishek Manu Singhvi joins us.
00:09Appreciate your joining us, Dr. Singhvi.
00:11It appears that while a Delhi court has dismissed the money laundering complaint registered by the ED against the Gandhis in the National Herald case,
00:22the court has also made it clear they are not pronouncing on the merits of the case.
00:26So, is the celebration in the Congress premature that the Gandhis have been let off?
00:31Because that is not quite the case.
00:34You judge for yourself, Rajdeep. Let me put it in perspective for your viewers.
00:39The judge has refused to take cognizance of the complaint.
00:44Cognizance is the lowest form of entertaining something.
00:47He has thought it not fit enough even to take cognizance, which is the basic entry point.
00:52Point number two, he has in effect said that there is no predicate offence, the underlying main offence, which is the dog, without which the tail cannot wag, because the ED is always a consequential offence.
01:07So, in the absence of a FIR, which is what the judge has found, there is no consequential ED offence made out.
01:15Point number three, the result is that for the last two, three years, with 50 hours of interrogation of Rahul Gandhi,
01:22with 10 hours of interrogation of a lady like Sonia Gandhi,
01:25with all this hullabaloo every day in the press shooting through every possible channel and newspaper that there is a big scam going on,
01:33we now find that all that investigation is on the basis of a non-existent FIR.
01:38Number four, if this judgment...
01:40No, no, no, Dr. Singh, Dr. Singh, I must stop.
01:43No, no, Dr. Singh, what the court seems to be suggesting is procedural because it's based on a private complaint that was filed by Dr. Swami,
01:52but the judge observed that the Delhi Police's Economic Offences Wing has since registered an FIR in the matter,
01:58and therefore the ED can carry on the investigation based on that FIR.
02:03So, therefore, I was just coming to the point, you must first realise that for the last three to four years,
02:09you are going on on something which has today been found to be without jurisdiction.
02:13The consequence, according to me in law, would be that all that investigation becomes null and void.
02:17Now, what will happen in the future will be for us to challenge.
02:22We don't know.
02:23Today, two weeks ago or one month ago, they have filed a new FIR.
02:28The new FIR is basically the same thing as the old with some few things added.
02:33Now, whether that will stand the scrutiny or not will have to be seen.
02:36It's open to all our challenges.
02:38Cognizance of that is a separate issue.
02:40My point is, how is it premature?
02:43That means all the hullabaloo you saw on your channels,
02:45all the newspaper leaks you saw on the newspapers,
02:48all the shouting from the rooftops you saw by the BJP and the government against National Herald,
02:55that was all a premature shouting.
02:58If that was not premature, why is our celebration premature?
03:02Today, it is...
03:03So, if I may ask you, how do you believe that the court's refusal to take cognizance of the EC's charge sheet,
03:12based, of course, on Dr. Swami's complaint,
03:15validate your earlier arguments that you've been making about the absence of a predicate offence
03:20or the alleged procedural flaws in the National Herald case?
03:24Why do you believe this is a victory for you?
03:26Please, please don't keep calling it procedural.
03:28That's your characterization and it's a mischaracterization.
03:31It's highly substantive.
03:32Our case was what?
03:34That you had an ED barking up a tree for the last three or four years
03:39without the body of the main schedule offence being there.
03:43That's a substantive issue.
03:44The first principle of PMLA is that you cannot have a tail,
03:48which is the ED consequential offence,
03:50wagging without the existence of a dog,
03:52which is a predicate offence, the FIR.
03:54Now, this court has found that there is no FIR
03:57in terms of a requirement of law under the PMLA Act
04:01that has to be a police report, police complaint.
04:03There is none.
04:04Mr. Subramanam, Dr. Subramanam Swami started a private complaint,
04:08which most of us tend to forget.
04:10He himself got a stay of his own complaint
04:12and the proceedings before the magistrate.
04:15He got it stayed himself by the High Court.
04:17Now, there is nothing on which it could proceed yet.
04:20What did you hear politically and legally for the last three or four years?
04:2356 hours of interrogation of Rahul Gandhi.
04:27Mr. Kharge and Madam Sonia Gandhi had hours.
04:31That was on what?
04:32On the basis of a non-existent FIR.
04:35And we are not entitled to tell you
04:36that this puts mud on the face of the ED.
04:39It makes them look foolish.
04:41Now, a month and a half ago,
04:43after four or five years of doing this,
04:45they tried to file another FIR,
04:48which is a rehash of the old
04:49with some very limited new facts.
04:52That will take its own course.
04:53We will deal with it.
04:54I am sure we will be able to point out equally
04:56So, you are seemingly suggesting...
04:58Rediculous gaps.
05:01You are seemingly suggesting this...
05:02It is a major substantive law.
05:02According to you,
05:03this is a classic case of the process being the punishment.
05:06You seem to be suggesting
05:07this is a classic case of the process being the punishment.
05:10The ED sources who are telling us,
05:12saying A, they are going to appeal against this lower court order
05:14and they believe they still have substantial evidence,
05:18they claim, to prove money laundering.
05:20So, let me answer both your questions.
05:21It is certainly process being the punishment.
05:24That is the rule in most of these cases
05:26because for the simple reason, Rajdeep, you and I know,
05:29the conviction rate in this is abyssally low.
05:32So, everybody is going to be acquitted,
05:34but you harass them because the process is the punishment.
05:37That's putting it in mildly.
05:38Secondly, they will, of course, appeal.
05:41Nobody can prevent their right to appeal,
05:42but we are talking as of today.
05:44As of today, they have mud on their face
05:46because they've been prosecuting.
05:49And why were they shouting so much?
05:50It is because politically it suits them to say,
05:53this is a huge scam.
05:55It was a huge scam.
05:56You didn't have a fire on it.
05:58You were relying on a private complaint
05:59by someone who had himself got his own proceeding state.
06:03Does the ED have to be taught some basic law?
06:06And certainly, calling it procedural is nothing.
06:09That's just a characterization in a self-serving manner.
06:12It is a very substantive, fatal flaw.
06:14Right from the famous case of Vijay Madanlal Chaudhary,
06:17which is a basic case,
06:19it has been held that without the basic offense of an FI,
06:22you can't have a PMLA offense.
06:23Now, I can tell you that this new FI is also full of flaws,
06:28but I am not, at the moment,
06:30going to reveal to you our strategy or our decision about it.
06:34But to say that now everything is hunky-dory,
06:36because last four years are washed off,
06:38lack of jurisdiction,
06:39the entire investigation goes.
06:41What were you investigating, Rajiv?
06:42Your investigation corpus, let's say, is 10 volumes.
06:46That 10 volume is based on non-existent FI-R.
06:49What is the value of that, evidentiary value of that?
06:52Okay, let me leave it there, Dr. Singhvi.
06:56You've clearly given your reasons
06:57why you believe what's happened today
07:00is, to use your words,
07:03mud on the face of the enforcement directorate,
07:05and you seem to suggest
07:07it is certainly a vindication of the stand
07:09that you've taken.
07:10We'll wait and see how that plays out.
07:12But for now, for joining us, Dr. Singhvi,
07:14appreciate you joining me.
Comments