The Delhi High Court on Thursday listed for March 9 the Enforcement Directorate’s (ED) challenge to a trial court order that declined to take cognisance of its prosecution complaint against Congress leaders Sonia Gandhi, Rahul Gandhi and others in the National Herald-linked money laundering case.
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma granted time to the Gandhis and other respondents to file their replies to the ED’s petition.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the ED, opposed the request for additional time, stating that notice had been served on the respondents two months earlier. He described the issue as a “neat question of law” and argued that the trial court’s findings were “coming in the way” of other cases. According to the ED, the reasons cited by the trial court for refusing cognisance were “patently perverse”.
On December 16, 2025, the trial court held that taking cognisance of the ED’s complaint under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) was “impermissible in law” because it was not based on an FIR for a scheduled offence.
The court noted that the ED’s investigation stemmed from a private complaint filed by BJP leader Subramanian Swamy and not from an FIR registered by a law enforcement agency. It also observed that despite the 2014 summoning order on the private complaint, the CBI did not register an FIR in relation to the alleged scheduled offence.
The High Court had earlier issued notice on December 22 on both the ED’s main petition and its application seeking a stay of the trial court’s order.
Apart from Sonia Gandhi and Rahul Gandhi, notices were issued to Suman Dubey, Sam Pitroda, Young Indian, Dotex Merchandise Pvt Ltd and Sunil Bhandari. The ED has also named late Congress leaders Motilal Vora and Oscar Fernandes in its allegations.
The agency has alleged a conspiracy to acquire properties worth about ₹2,000 crore belonging to Associated Journals Limited (AJL), which publishes the National Herald newspaper. It claims that Young Indian, in which the Gandhis allegedly held a 76% shareholding, “fraudulently” took control of AJL’s assets in exchange for a ₹90 crore loan.
Challenging the trial court’s reasoning, the ED contended that its order effectively grants immunity to a category of accused persons merely because the scheduled offence originated from a private complaint rather than an FIR.
The agency argued that once a competent court has taken cognisance of a private complaint relating to the scheduled offence, it stands “on a much higher pedestal than a mere FIR” and is sufficient to sustain proceedings under the PMLA.
It further submitted that at the stage of cognisance, the court’s inquiry is limited to examining whether the complaint discloses sufficient grounds to proceed and should not involve a detailed evaluation of the merits.
The matter will now be taken up on March 9, when the High Court is expected to consider the respondents’ replies and the ED’s challenge to the trial court’s refusal to take cognisance.
