Delhi HC Lists ED Plea Against Trial Court Order on Gandhis in National Herald Case
Apart from the Gandhis, notices were also issued to Suman Dubey, Sam Pitroda, Young Indian, Dotex Merchandise Pvt Ltd and Sunil Bhandari.
New Delhi: The Delhi High Court on Monday listed for April 20 the hearing of a plea filed by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) challenging a trial court order that refused to take cognisance of its chargesheet against Congress leaders Sonia Gandhi, Rahul Gandhi and others in the National Herald-linked money laundering case.
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma said the court would not be able to hear the matter on Monday and adjourned it after Additional Solicitor General S.V. Raju, appearing for the ED, sought a short date.
Earlier, on December 22, the high court issued notices to Sonia Gandhi, Rahul Gandhi and other accused on the ED’s petition and its application seeking a stay on the December 16, 2025 order of the trial court.
The trial court had held that taking cognisance of the ED’s complaint was “impermissible in law” as the money laundering case was not founded on a First Information Report (FIR).
Apart from the Gandhis, notices were also issued to Suman Dubey, Sam Pitroda, Young Indian, Dotex Merchandise Pvt Ltd and Sunil Bhandari.
The ED has alleged that Sonia Gandhi and Rahul Gandhi, along with late Congress leaders Motilal Vora and Oscar Fernandes, and others, conspired to acquire properties worth around ₹2,000 crore belonging to Associated Journals Limited (AJL), the publisher of the National Herald newspaper.
According to the agency, the Gandhis held a 76 per cent stake in Young Indian, which allegedly took control of AJL’s assets in exchange for a ₹90 crore loan.
The ED argued that the trial court erred in refusing to take cognisance of its prosecution complaint under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) on the ground that the scheduled offence arose from a private complaint filed by BJP leader Subramanian Swamy rather than an FIR registered by a law enforcement agency.
The agency contended that the trial court’s interpretation could allow money laundering cases linked to offences reported through private complaints to escape prosecution.
