National Herald Case: Delhi HC seeks Gandhi' s reply on ED plea against trial court order

The Delhi High Court on Monday sought responses from Congress leaders Sonia Gandhi and Rahul Gandhi on a plea filed by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) challenging a trial court order that refused to take cognisance of its chargesheet in the National Herald money laundering case.

Justice Ravinder Dudeja issued notice to the Gandhis and other accused on the ED’s main petition as well as its application seeking a stay on the December 16 order of the trial court, which had held that taking cognisance of the agency’s prosecution complaint was “not permissible in law” as it was not based on a registered FIR. The matter has been listed for further hearing on March 12, 2026.

Apart from Sonia and Rahul Gandhi, the high court also issued notices to Suman Dubey, Sam Pitroda, Young Indian Pvt Ltd, Dotex Merchandise Pvt Ltd and Sunil Bhandari. Senior advocates Abhishek Singhvi and R S Cheema appeared for the Gandhis, while Solicitor General Tushar Mehta represented the ED.

The trial court had ruled that an investigation and the consequent prosecution complaint under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) are not maintainable in the absence of an FIR relating to the scheduled offence. It noted that the ED’s probe stemmed from a private complaint filed by BJP leader Subramanian Swamy, and not from an FIR registered by a law enforcement agency.

During Monday’s hearing, Mehta argued that the trial court’s interpretation had gone “horribly wrong” and could adversely affect other money laundering cases. He submitted that after completing investigations, the ED files a prosecution complaint in a manner similar to a police report.

Disputing the ED’s submissions, Singhvi said there was a contrary legal perspective to the agency’s stand, while accepting notice and undertaking to file a detailed reply.

In its plea, the ED contended that the trial court order effectively granted a “hall pass” to a category of money launderers merely because the scheduled offence originated from a private complaint rather than an FIR. It alleged that the order amounted to judicial legislation and failed to consider the gravity of the allegations involved.

The trial court, however, held that since cognisance was declined on a pure question of law, it was not required to adjudicate on the merits of the allegations. It also noted that despite the 2014 summoning order issued on Swamy’s complaint, the CBI did not register an FIR for the alleged scheduled offence.

The court observed that the ED nevertheless proceeded to record an Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR) on June 30, 2021, even though no FIR existed at that time in relation to the predicate offence.

The ED has accused Sonia and Rahul Gandhi, along with late Congress leaders Motilal Vora and Oscar Fernandes, Suman Dubey, Sam Pitroda, and private entities Young Indian Pvt Ltd and Dotex Merchandise Pvt Ltd, of conspiracy and money laundering.

According to the agency, Young Indian allegedly controlled by the Gandhis, who together held 76 per cent shares fraudulently acquired properties worth around ₹2,000 crore belonging to Associated Journals Limited (AJL), the publisher of the National Herald newspaper. The ED claims the assets were taken over in exchange for a ₹90 crore loan, which it alleges was used as a tool to illegally usurp AJL’s properties.

At the next hearing, the high court is expected to examine whether the ED’s prosecution under the PMLA can proceed in the absence of an FIR in the scheduled offence, a determination that could decide the future course of the case.