In a significant legal development, a Delhi court on Tuesday refused to take cognizance of the Enforcement Directorate’s (ED) money laundering case against Congress leaders Sonia Gandhi, Rahul Gandhi, and five others in the long-running National Herald case. The Rouse Avenue Court held that the agency’s prosecution complaint—filed under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA)—was “not maintainable” because the predicate case was based on a private complaint, not a First Information Report (FIR).
The court, presided over by Special Judge Rakesh Syal, pointed out two key factors in its decision. First, the ED’s case was built upon a private complaint filed by BJP leader Subramanian Swamy back in 2012, rather than an FIR registered by a police agency. Second, the court noted that the Delhi Police’s Economic Offences Wing (EOW) had already registered an FIR in the matter. Given this, the court deemed it “premature and imprudent” to rule on the ED’s submission at this stage. However, the court clarified that the ED is free to continue its investigation. The agency has indicated it will appeal the order.
The case revolves around Associated Journals Limited (AJL), the now-defunct parent company of the National Herald newspaper. The EOW, in its submission last month, accused the Gandhis and others—including Congress’ overseas unit chief Sam Pitroda—of conspiring to “fraudulently take-over” AJL. The National Herald, founded in 1938 by India’s first Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru and others, was historically seen as the Congress party’s mouthpiece. It ceased print publication in 2008, reportedly with debts of ₹90.21 crore but holding valuable real estate assets.
The ED has alleged that these assets—including the Herald House in Delhi and properties in Mumbai—were fraudulently acquired by the accused for a mere ₹50 lakh. The agency claims these properties, initially allotted by the government specifically for newspaper operations, were misused for commercial purposes, generating rental income. The ED estimates the current value of these assets at ₹5,000 crore and labels ₹998 crore as “proceeds of crime.”
The court’s order triggered sharp political exchanges. Congress leader and senior advocate Abhishek Singhvi dismissed the case as “the BJP’s recycled obsession,” accusing the ruling party of “conjuring a case out of its own twisted mind.” In response, BJP National General Secretary Tarun Chugh said the Congress was in a “state of panic, frustration, and outcry.”
The Congress also received support from some of its allies. Shiv Sena (UBT) leader Priyanka Chaturvedi called the case “nothing but a political witch hunt,” accusing the BJP of using agencies as “a tool to attack opposition voices.”
The court’s ruling highlights a procedural nuance in PMLA cases. The anti-money laundering law typically requires a “predicate offence”—a scheduled crime registered by a police agency—to trigger its provisions. Here, the original case was a private complaint before a magistrate, which was later referred for investigation. The court’s decision suggests that until the EOW’s FIR reaches a certain stage, a parallel PMLA prosecution may be considered premature.
The ED’s planned appeal will be the next step in this high-stakes legal battle. Meanwhile, the EOW’s investigation continues. The case, which has simmered for over a decade, remains a potent political flashpoint, emblematic of the ongoing tensions between the ruling BJP and the Congress opposition.
As the legal processes unfold, the National Herald case continues to underscore the deeply intertwined—and often contentious—relationship between India’s political narratives and its judicial institutions.
Leave Your Comment