Delhi High Court to hear ED plea against Gandhis in National Herald case on April 20

The Delhi High Court has listed April 20 to hear the Enforcement Directorate's plea challenging a trial court order that refused to take cognisance of its chargesheet against Sonia Gandhi, Rahul Gandhi and others in the National Herald-linked money laundering case

New Delhi: The Delhi High Court on Monday listed for hearing on April 20 a plea by the ED challenging a trial court order that refused to take cognisance of its chargesheet against Congress leaders Sonia Gandhi, Rahul Gandhi and others in the National Herald-linked money laundering case.

Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma said the court would not be able to hear the matter today.

---

Additional Solicitor General S V Raju, appearing for the Enforcement Directorate, requested the court to give a short date in the matter.

The court subsequently adjourned the matter for hearing on April 20.

On December 22, the high court had issued notice to the Gandhis and others on the main petition as well as on the ED’s application seeking a stay on the December 16, 2025 trial court order, which held that cognisance of the agency’s complaint in the case was “impermissible in law” as it was not founded on an FIR.

Besides the Gandhis, the high court had also issued notices to Suman Dubey, Sam Pitroda, Young Indian, Dotex Merchandise Pvt Ltd and Sunil Bhandari on the ED’s plea.

The ED has accused Sonia Gandhi and Rahul Gandhi, as well as late Congress leaders Motilal Vora and Oscar Fernandes, along with Suman Dubey, Sam Pitroda and a private company, Young Indian, of conspiracy and money laundering.

It has been alleged that they acquired properties worth approximately Rs 2,000 crore belonging to Associated Journals Limited (AJL), which publishes the National Herald newspaper.

The ED further alleged that the Gandhis held a majority 76 per cent shares in Young Indian, which “fraudulently” usurped the assets of AJL in exchange for a Rs 90 crore loan.

On February 19, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta appeared for the ED and argued that the case concerned a “neat question of law” and that the reasons given by the trial court to refuse taking cognisance were “patently perverse”.

He said the case has to be argued on law and not facts, and that the trial court’s findings were “coming in the way” of other cases.

In its order, the trial court had said that an investigation and the consequent prosecution complaint (equivalent to a chargesheet) pertaining to the offence of money laundering were “not maintainable” in the absence of an FIR for the offence mentioned in the schedule to the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).

It said the agency’s probe stemmed from a private complaint and not an FIR and despite receiving the complaint made by BJP leader Subramanian Swamy and the consequent summoning order in 2014, the Central Bureau of Investigation refrained from registering an FIR in relation to the alleged scheduled offence.

The ED, in its plea in the high court, has claimed that the trial court order has in effect 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.

It claimed there are such grave allegations levelled against the 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.

“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 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 the filing of a chargesheet by police.