The Delhi High Court on Monday directed Congress leaders Sonia Gandhi and Rahul Gandhi, along with other accused, to respond to an Enforcement Directorate (ED) petition. The agency is challenging a trial court's order that refused to take cognisance of its charge-sheet in the high-profile National Herald alleged money laundering case.
Court Proceedings and Key Arguments
Justice Ravinder Dudeja issued the notice on the ED's petition and a connected application seeking a stay of the trial court's December 16 order. The court, however, declined to grant any immediate stay and listed the matter for a detailed hearing on March 12, 2026.
Appearing for the ED, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta argued that the trial court failed to appreciate that the PMLA probe was based on scheduled offences of cheating and criminal conspiracy under the Indian Penal Code. He stated that cognisance had already been taken on these offences by a magistrate, a decision upheld by the Supreme Court. Mehta contended this provided a firmer legal footing than a police FIR.
"Cognisance taken by a competent court on a private complaint carries a higher legal standing than an FIR," Mehta submitted. He emphasized that the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) does not mandate how a scheduled offence must be registered, only requiring the existence of allegations of related criminal activity.
The Core of the Legal Dispute
The trial court had held that taking cognisance of the ED's complaint was "impermissible in law". Its reasoning was that the money laundering probe was not founded on an FIR registered under the PMLA but arose from a private complaint.
The case revolves around allegations of fund misuse and the transfer of control of Associated Journals Ltd (AJL), the publisher of the National Herald newspaper, to Young Indian, a private company linked to Congress functionaries. Besides the Gandhis, the ED has named Congress leaders Motilal Vora, Oscar Fernandes, Suman Dubey, Sam Pitroda, and Young Indian in the case, accusing them of conspiracy and money laundering.
Opposition and the Road Ahead
Senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, representing the Gandhis, opposed granting any interim relief to the ED. Indicating a differing legal perspective, he argued against the agency's submissions as the court proceeded to issue notice without a stay.
The trial court had ruled that the investigation and filing of a charge-sheet for money laundering were "not maintainable" without an FIR under the PMLA, stressing the ED's action originated from a private complaint. It noted that despite receiving a complaint from BJP's Subramanian Swamy and a summoning order in 2014, the CBI did not register an FIR for the alleged scheduled offences.
With the High Court's notice issued, all parties are now expected to file their detailed responses ahead of the substantial hearing scheduled for 2026, keeping the politically sensitive case alive in the legal arena.
