No interim order came on Monday on the plea to stop Associated Journals Limited from seeking release of properties attached by the Enforcement Directorate in the National Herald Case.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
New Delhi: Hearing the agency’s challenge to a trial court order that refused to take cognisance of its money laundering complaint against Congress leaders Sonia Gandhi and Rahul Gandhi and others, the Delhi High Court on Monday declined to restrain Associated Journals Limited (AJL) from seeking release of properties attached by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) in the National Herald Case [Enforcement Directorate v. Sonia Gandhi and Another].
The matter was before Justice Sachin Datta, with Additional Solicitor General S.V. Raju appearing for the ED. No interim order was passed, and the matter will be heard further on November 2.
In Court on Monday
ASG Raju told the Court that the companies were relying on the trial court order to seek release of the attached properties, including Herald House on Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, before the PMLA appellate tribunal.
They are making use of this order to get the properties released.
Justice Datta did not pass any order at this stage. When the ASG asked that the parties be made to seek an adjournment before the tribunal, the Court is recorded as saying that it was not saying anything, and it observed that, as of now, the Gandhis and others are not accused. The respondents have contended in the proceedings that the case is unprecedented, since allegations of money laundering have been made without the use or projection of any property.
The order under challenge
The ED is questioning the order of December 16, 2025, in which Special Judge Vishal Gogne of the Rouse Avenue Courts declined to take cognisance of its prosecution complaint under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).
The trial court held that the complaint was not maintainable because it was not based on an FIR for a scheduled offence, and that the proceedings rested on a private complaint filed by Dr Subramanian Swamy under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The ED’s case, which is an allegation and untested, is that AJL shares were transferred to Young Indian Private Limited under a criminal conspiracy to acquire AJL’s assets.
What it means for now
AJL remains free to pursue release of the attached properties before the appellate tribunal while the ED’s challenge to the cognisance order is pending. The Court has expressed no view on the merits of the ED’s allegations or of the respondents’ defence, and the presumption of innocence applies to all persons named.
Case Title: Enforcement Directorate v. Sonia Gandhi and Another
Bench: Justice Sachin Datta, Delhi High Court
Date of Hearing: October 12, 2026
Appearance: ASG S.V. Raju for the Enforcement Directorate