The Delhi High Court has listed April 20 to hear the ED’s plea challenging a trial court order that refused to take cognisance of its chargesheet against Sonia Gandhi and Rahul Gandhi in the National Herald money laundering case. The ED argues the trial court ruling was legally flawed and could affect other money laundering prosecutions under the PMLA.
The Delhi High Court on Monday scheduled April 20 for hearing a petition filed by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) challenging a trial court order that refused to take cognisance of its prosecution complaint against Congress leaders Sonia Gandhi, Rahul Gandhi and others in connection with the National Herald-linked money laundering case.
The matter came up before Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma, who informed the parties that the court would not be able to hear the case on Monday. Following a request from the ED for an early hearing, the court fixed the matter for April 20.
During the proceedings, Additional Solicitor General S V Raju, appearing on behalf of the Enforcement Directorate, urged the court to list the matter soon. Accepting the request, the High Court adjourned the hearing to the next available date.
Earlier, on December 22, the Delhi High Court had issued notices to Sonia Gandhi, Rahul Gandhi and several others in the matter. The notices were issued in response to the ED’s main petition as well as its application seeking a stay on the trial court’s December 16, 2025 order. The trial court had refused to take cognisance of the ED’s complaint and ruled that cognisance of the agency’s complaint in the case was “impermissible in law” as it was not founded on an FIR.
Apart from the Gandhis, the High Court also issued notices to Suman Dubey, Sam Pitroda, Young Indian, Dotex Merchandise Pvt Ltd and Sunil Bhandari on the ED’s plea.
The Enforcement Directorate has alleged that Sonia Gandhi and Rahul Gandhi, along with late Congress leaders Motilal Vora and Oscar Fernandes, as well as Suman Dubey, Sam Pitroda and the private company Young Indian, were involved in a conspiracy and money laundering scheme linked to the National Herald newspaper.
According to the agency, the accused persons acquired properties worth nearly ₹2,000 crore belonging to Associated Journals Limited (AJL), the company that publishes the National Herald.
The ED has further alleged that Sonia Gandhi and Rahul Gandhi held a majority stake of 76 per cent in Young Indian. The agency claims that the company “fraudulently” took control of the valuable assets of Associated Journals Limited in exchange for a loan of ₹90 crore.
On February 19, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta appeared before the court on behalf of the Enforcement Directorate and argued that the case involved an important legal issue. He submitted that the trial court’s reasoning for refusing to take cognisance was legally flawed. According to him, the case raised a “neat question of law” and the reasons given by the trial court to refuse taking cognizance were “patently perverse”.
He further argued that the issue must be examined purely from a legal perspective rather than on factual aspects. He also stated that the trial court’s observations were affecting other similar cases and said the case has to be argued on law and not facts, and the trial court’s findings were “coming in the way” of other cases.
ALSO READ: Rahul Gandhi Moves Supreme Court Over Savarkar Defamation Case – Hearing on Friday
In its order dated December 16, 2025, the trial court had observed that an investigation and prosecution complaint under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) could not proceed in the absence of an FIR for the scheduled offence mentioned under the Act.
The trial court had ruled that the ED’s investigation and the subsequent prosecution complaint were “not maintainable” because there was no FIR registered for the scheduled offence. The court pointed out that the ED’s investigation began based on a private complaint and not an FIR.
The complaint had originally been filed by BJP leader Subramanian Swamy, and a summoning order was passed in 2014. However, despite receiving the complaint and the summoning order, the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) did not register an FIR regarding the alleged scheduled offence.
Challenging the trial court’s ruling, the ED has argued before the High Court that the order effectively allows certain accused persons to escape prosecution in money laundering cases simply because the scheduled offence was reported through a private complaint instead of an FIR.
The agency stated in its plea that the trial court order has effectively given a
“hall pass to a category of money launderers only on the ground that the scheduled offence is reported by a private individual by way of a complaint to a magistrate”.
The ED also argued that the allegations in the case are serious and should not be dismissed lightly based on the legal precedents relied upon by the trial court. It submitted that there are
“such grave allegations levelled against Gandhis and others which cannot be brushed aside lightly by relying upon judicial precedents cited to conclude that the ingredients of the criminal offences alleged are lacking”.
In its petition, the agency further explained the reasoning adopted by the trial court while refusing to take cognisance of the complaint. According to the plea,
“The sole ground given for declining cognisance is that a prosecution complaint filed by an authorised officer under the PMLA cannot be based on a scheduled offence emanating from a private complaint filed by a private individual and such scheduled offence must be registered only by a law enforcement agency, that is, either by way of an FIR by the police or a complaint by a person authorised to investigate the scheduled offence,”
the plea said.
The Enforcement Directorate has also argued that the trial court failed to properly consider the legal position regarding private complaints and court proceedings. According to the agency, cognisance taken by a competent court on a private complaint carries greater legal weight compared to a police FIR.
ALSO READ: Rahul Gandhi Faces Non-Bailable Warrant in Defamation Case Over Amit Shah Remark
The ED said the special judge has failed to appreciate that cognisance taken by a competent court on a private complaint stands on a much higher footing than a mere FIR registered by police wherein there is a possibility that cognisance may be declined after filing of a chargesheet by police.
The Delhi High Court will now examine the ED’s challenge to the trial court order when the matter comes up for hearing on April 20. The outcome of the case is likely to have important implications for the ongoing proceedings in the National Herald-linked money laundering case.
Click Here to Read Our Reports on Rahul Gandhi
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
