Delhi HC Seeks Response From Gandhis on ED Plea

NEW DELHI: The Delhi High Court on Monday asked Congress leaders Sonia Gandhi, Rahul Gandhi and others to respond to 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 case.

Justice Ravinder Dudeja issued notices to the Gandhis and others on the main petition as well as on the ED’s application seeking a stay on the December 16 trial court order. The trial court had held that cognisance of the agency’s complaint was “impermissible in law” as it was not based on an FIR. The High Court listed the matter for further hearing on March 12, 2026.

Apart from the Gandhis, notices were also issued to Suman Dubey, Sam Pitroda, Young Indian, Dotex Merchandise Pvt. Ltd., and Sunil Bhandari on the ED’s plea.

While Solicitor General Tushar Mehta appeared for the ED, senior advocates Abhishek Singhvi and R.S. Cheema represented the Gandhis.

In its order, the trial court had said that an investigation and the consequent prosecution complaint under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) was not maintainable in the absence of an FIR for the scheduled offence. It noted that the ED’s probe had stemmed from a private complaint and not from an FIR.

During Monday’s hearing, the Solicitor General argued that the trial court’s view had gone “horribly wrong” and could impact other cases as well. He submitted that after completing investigations, the ED files a prosecution complaint in a manner similar to a police chargesheet.

Senior advocate Singhvi contested the ED’s submissions but said he would accept the notice and file a detailed reply. He said there was a contrary legal perspective to the arguments advanced by the ED.

In its plea, the ED argued 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 before a magistrate. It contended that grave allegations against the accused could not be dismissed by relying on judicial precedents to conclude that the ingredients of the offences were lacking.

The ED further claimed that the trial court order amounted to judicial legislation. It said the sole ground for declining cognisance was the view that a prosecution complaint under the PMLA cannot be based on a scheduled offence arising from a private complaint and must instead originate from an FIR or a complaint by an authorised agency.

The trial court had also observed that since cognisance was declined on a pure question of law, it was unnecessary to examine the merits of the allegations. It noted that despite a complaint by BJP leader Subramanian Swamy and a summoning order in 2014, the CBI did not register an FIR for the alleged scheduled offence. However, the ED recorded an ECIR on June 30, 2021, even though no FIR existed at the time.

The ED has accused Sonia and Rahul Gandhi, along with late Congress leaders Motilal Vora and Oscar Fernandes, Suman Dubey, Sam Pitroda, and Young Indian, of conspiracy and money laundering. The agency has alleged that properties worth about ₹2,000 crore belonging to Associated Journals Limited (AJL), which publishes the National Herald newspaper, were acquired through fraudulent means. It further alleged that the Gandhis held a 76 per cent stake in Young Indian, which allegedly usurped AJL’s assets in exchange for a ₹90 crore loan.