A Delhi court on Tuesday delivered a significant setback to the Enforcement Directorate (ED), refusing to take legal cognizance of its prosecution complaint against senior Congress leaders Sonia Gandhi and Rahul Gandhi in the high-profile National Herald alleged money laundering case. The court ruled that the complaint was not legally maintainable as it was based on a private complaint rather than a formal First Information Report (FIR).
Court's Legal Reasoning for Dismissal
Special Judge Vishal Gogne of the Rouse Avenue Court provided a detailed legal rationale for dismissing the ED's complaint. The judge stated that the prosecution complaint pertaining to money laundering was founded on a cognizance and summoning order based on a complaint by a public person, Dr. Subramanian Swamy, and not upon an FIR. He emphasized that "cognizance of the present complaint is impermissible in law."
Judge Gogne elaborated that an investigation into the offence of money laundering cannot be maintained solely on the basis of a complaint under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), which deals with the examination of a complainant. "An FIR is a jurisdictional trigger," the judge noted, highlighting a critical procedural flaw. He pointed out that despite receiving the complaint from Subramanian Swamy, the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) had refused to register an FIR. The ED, however, proceeded to file an Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR) when no FIR was in place for the scheduled offence.
Origins and Allegations of the National Herald Case
The case has a long political history, originating in 2012 from a criminal complaint filed by then BJP Rajya Sabha MP, Dr. Subramanian Swamy. He accused the Gandhis and other Congress leaders of fraud in acquiring the property of Associated Journals Limited (AJL), the publisher of the National Herald newspaper.
The ED's chargesheet, filed on April 9 this year, alleged a complex financial fraud. The agency claimed that 99% of AJL's shares were transferred to a private not-for-profit company, Young Indian, for "a mere Rs 50 lakh," while the value of AJL's properties was estimated to exceed Rs 2,000 crore. Sonia and Rahul Gandhi each hold a 38% share in Young Indian.
According to the ED's narrative, senior Congress leaders provided an interest-free loan of Rs 90 crore to AJL. The agency alleged that Young Indian was created specifically to launder the massive sum of Rs 2,000 crore. Apart from the Gandhis, the accused in the case include Congress leaders Suman Dubey and Sam Pitroda, as well as two firms: Young India and Dotex Merchandise Pvt. Ltd.
In a related asset attachment in May 2019, the ED had attached a 3,360-square-meter plot in Panchkula's Sector 6. This plot had been re-allotted to AJL by the then Congress government led by Bhupinder Singh Hooda in Haryana.
Implications and Political Context
This court order comes as a major relief for the Congress leadership, which has consistently described the case as politically motivated. The ruling underscores the importance of strict procedural adherence in launching criminal proceedings, especially in cases involving high-profile political figures.
The decision highlights the legal distinction between a private complaint and an FIR registered by the police or an investigating agency. By refusing cognizance, the court has effectively halted the ED's current legal avenue in this particular complaint. However, the agency may explore other legal options if fresh evidence or a proper FIR emerges.
The National Herald case has been a central point of political contention for nearly a decade, often cited in parliamentary debates and election campaigns. This latest development is likely to fuel further political discourse on the use of investigative agencies and the legal challenges faced by opposition parties in India.
