The Delhi High Court has pressed the Enforcement Directorate on whether a private complaint alone can trigger a money laundering case, while hearing the agency’s challenge in the National Herald matter against Sonia Gandhi and Rahul Gandhi.
New Delhi: The Delhi High Court on Monday heard the Enforcement Directorate’s challenge to a Special Court order refusing to take cognisance of its prosecution complaint against Congress leaders Sonia Gandhi, Rahul Gandhi and others in the National Herald case, with the Bench questioning the statutory basis for the ED’s stand that a private complaint can found a PMLA case [Directorate of Enforcement v. Sonia Gandhi and Others].
Justice Sachin Datta heard Additional Solicitor General SV Raju for the ED and listed the matter for further hearing on November 23, when the respondents will be heard.
The background
The case stems from a 2012 private complaint by BJP leader Subramanian Swamy alleging cheating, conspiracy and misappropriation in the affairs of Associated Journals Limited, publisher of the National Herald, and Young Indian Pvt Ltd. The ED registered an ECIR in June 2021, alleges that the transactions involved proceeds of crime, has attached assets of about Rs 752 crore, and filed its prosecution complaint on April 15, 2025.
On December 16, 2025, the Special Court declined cognisance, holding that the ED’s case could not rest on a private complaint in the absence of an FIR, while leaving open further investigation in light of a later FIR registered by the Delhi Police’s Economic Offences Wing.
The ED’s arguments
ASG Raju argued that the law draws no distinction between a scheduled offence reported through an FIR and one brought before a Magistrate by private complaint, relying on A.R. Antulay v. Ramdas Sriniwas Nayak, Vijay Madanlal Choudhary and Section 44 of the PMLA. He submitted that a Magistrate taking cognisance applies judicial mind, placing such a complaint on a “higher footing” than an uninvestigated FIR, and warned that the Special Court’s view would let persons accused of laundering “thousands of crores” escape the Act.
Questions from the Bench
Justice Datta repeatedly questioned the source of that interpretation. He asked orally:
“At what point would a private complaint be enough? According to you, mere filing of a complaint is sufficient, whether or not cognisance is taken or not? But from where do you get that? There’s no statutory guidance.”
On the ED’s reliance on the later EOW FIR, the judge asked, “If the complaint suffices, why would you need to rely upon the FIR then?” and whether the FIR could “infuse life into a complaint which is still born” if the Special Court’s reasoning were upheld. He indicated that the challenge would be examined on the ED’s original position. Agreeing with the ASG on one point, he said, “Nobody can rely upon internal noting of ED in any matter.”
The respondents’ stand
Sonia Gandhi and Rahul Gandhi have opposed the ED’s challenge, contending that the agency cannot begin PMLA proceedings on the basis of a private complaint and that this case is an exceptional instance in which the ED departed from its own earlier position that an FIR is required. The allegations are untested, the Court has expressed no view on the merits, and the accused are entitled to the presumption of innocence.
Why the hearing matters
The PMLA depends on a predicate scheduled offence, and the question of how that offence must first be recorded has wide consequences. If a private complaint is enough, the ED’s jurisdiction could begin earlier and more often. If an FIR is required, a class of cases built on complaints may fall. The answer will reach well beyond this case.
Case Title: Directorate of Enforcement v. Sonia Gandhi and Others (title to be verified)
Bench: Justice Sachin Datta, Delhi High Court
Date of Hearing: November 2, 2026
Next Date: November 23, 2026
Appearance: Additional Solicitor General SV Raju for the ED