On December 22, 2025, Delhi High Court has issued notice to Congress leader Sonia Gandhi, Rahul Gandhi and other accused in the National Herald money laundering case. Actually, in this case, Rouse Avenue Court had refused to take action on the charge sheet against Rahul-Sonia. After this the Enforcement Directorate (ED) challenged in the Delhi High Court.

Delhi High Court gave hearing date next year

Delhi High Court has accepted the petition of ED and given the next date of hearing as March 12, 2026. On behalf of ED, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta in his argument in Delhi High Court said that the final conclusion is that in exchange of the amount of Rs 50 lakh, the accused have received property worth Rs 2,000 crore.

Tushar Mehta said that in June 2014, a private complaint was filed by an individual, on which the lower court had taken cognizance and later the Delhi High Court had put a stay on it.

Names of many big personalities included in the charge sheet

ED had named Sonia Gandhi, Rahul Gandhi, Sam Pitroda, Suman Dubey, Sunil Bhandari, Young Indian and Dotex Merchandise Private Limited in its charge sheet. On ED’s investigation, Congress’s argument was that this is an act of political vendetta, whereas ED claims that this is a serious economic crime in which evidence of fraud and money laundering has been found.

ED accuses Sonia-Rahul of big scam

ED alleges that Congress leaders, as part of a conspiracy, acquired Associated Journals Ltd. To take over the assets of (AJL) worth Rs 2,000 crore, it was acquired through private company ‘Young Indian’ for only Rs 50 lakh. Sonia and Rahul hold 76% shares of this company.

In this case, the ‘income earned from crime’ was considered to be Rs 988 crore. Also, the market value of the associated properties has been said to be Rs 5,000 crore.

What is National Herald case?

The National Herald case in which the charge sheet has been filed against Rahul Gandhi and Sonia Gandhi is related to the National Herald newspaper. It was started in 1938 by the then Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru along with 5 thousand freedom fighters. This newspaper was published by AJL. This newspaper was closed in 2008. Then news of controversy and scam on its acquisition started emerging.

The Supreme Court will announce an important decision on Friday in which the disputed order has been challenged to hold all stray dogs from Delhi and four districts (Noida, Ghaziabad, Gurugram and Faridabad). This order was issued on 8 August and now the question is whether it will be stopped, revised or will be applicable.

Decision will be heard of three judges
A bench of three judges headed by Justice Vikram Nath (along with Justice Sandeep Mehta and NV Anjariya) will decide whether the order is completely banned or changes or retained.

August 8 order and its expansion
On August 8, a bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan ordered that all stray dogs be caught and kept in permanent shelters in eight weeks and should not be released on the streets again. Later in written order it was extended to Faridabad. Also, a 5,000 capacity shelter was instructed to build in eight weeks.

Dispute and objection
Controversy immediately arose over this order. Many NGOs and animal welfare groups said that it is against the ‘Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act’ and ‘Animal Birth Control (ABC) Rules’. According to these rules, dogs have to be sterilized and vaccinated and left back to the same area, not to close in shelters on a large scale.

Chief Justice changed benches
After the criticism and in view of the new petitions, Chief Justice BR Gavai withdrew the case from the Pardiwala bench and handed over to a large bench of three judges (under the leadership of Justice Nath). The bench held a long hearing on August 14 and reserved the verdict, which will now be pronounced on Friday.

Court displeasure at hearing
During the hearing, the big bench reprimanded the Delhi government and the municipal corporations that they are not implementing their own rules. The court said that both the safety and animal welfare of humans are being affected. The court asked the Delhi government whether it would follow the law or not.

Arguments of government and opposition parties
Giving examples of attacks on children and deaths from dog bytes, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta said that immediate intervention is necessary. He said that dogs do not have to kill, but it is necessary to separate, sterilize and treat. At the same time, many senior lawyers including Kapil Sibal, Abhishek Manu Singhvi and Siddharth Luthra said on behalf of the NGOs that this order is illegal and invalid. He showed his statistics of the government that there was no death due to the recent dog byte in Delhi, which exposes the baselessness of the order.

Animal welfare conditions in order
In the written order issued on 11 August, the shelter should not have cruelty with dogs, should not be hungry, congestion should be avoided, weak dogs should be kept away and veterinary-related conditions were also added. Also, adoption was allowed to adopt with the approval of the Animal Welfare Board, but there was a direction of “strict action” on leaving the adopted dogs on the road.

Why the matter started
The whole matter arose when a six -year -old girl died of rabies after a dog bites. The Pardiwala bench had said that the incidents of dog byte are showing “worrying patterns” and local bodies have failed to ensure safety of public places.

Supreme Court CJI on Waqf Amendment Act: The Supreme Court heard the petitions challenging the constitutionality of the Waqf Amendment Act 2025 on Tuesday (May 20, 2025). The petitions were heard by a two -member bench headed by Chief Justice of India Bhushan Ramakrishna Gavai, including Justice Augustin George Christ along with CJI. While hearing the petitions, Chief Justice of India BR Gawai has drawn a Laxman Rekha, making a big comment about the constitutionality of laws passed by Parliament.

Hearing the petitions challenging the constitutionality of the Waqf Amendment Act, 2025, the CJI told the petitioners, “There is a notion of constitutionality of laws after passing from Parliament and no law is constitutional, unless a concrete and concrete case is revealed in this regard, the courts cannot interfere in this regard.”

Central government appeals to Supreme Court

The central government has also made an appeal to the Supreme Court regarding this matter. The central government has told the Supreme Court to limit the hearing on the petitions challenging the validity of the law, including the rights of boards to de-detail the Waqf properties declared by the court, user and the deed. On behalf of the Center, Solitary General Tushar Mehta made this request before the bench of Chief Justice BR Gavai and Justice Augustine George Christ. However, on this demand of the central government, the petitioners’ counsel Kapil Sibal lodged an objection in the court.

Kapil Sibal and Abhishek Singhvi objected to the demand of the center

Senior advocates Kapil Sibal and Abhishek Singhvi, appearing for the petitioners, opposed the argument of the Center in the court, saying, “No important law cannot be heard in pieces.” Kapil Sibal, while arguing, said, ‘The amended law violates Article 25 of the Constitution, under which people gives people the right to follow religion, to conduct and propagate religion. Therefore, we will argue on all issues. He said, “The matter should be heard to issue an interim order.”