The Delhi High Court on Monday declined to take up the Enforcement Directorate’s (ED) petition in connection with the National Herald money laundering case, deferring the matter to May 25. The case had been listed before Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma.
The Enforcement Directorate has approached the High Court challenging a trial court order that refused to take cognisance of its chargesheet against senior Congress leaders, including Sonia Gandhi and Rahul Gandhi, along with several others. The agency maintains that the trial court’s decision requires judicial scrutiny and that the material placed on record justifies formal cognisance.
Earlier, on December 22, the High Court had issued notices to the Gandhis and multiple co-accused in both the main petition and the ED’s application seeking a stay on the trial court’s December 16, 2025 order. The lower court had ruled that taking cognisance of the complaint was “impermissible in law” as it was not based on a First Information Report (FIR).
Apart from the Gandhis, notices were also issued to Suman Dubey, Sam Pitroda, Young Indian, Dotex Merchandise Pvt Ltd, and Sunil Bhandari.
The ED has alleged that Sonia Gandhi, Rahul Gandhi, and late Congress leaders Motilal Vora and Oscar Fernandes were part of a broader conspiracy involving money laundering. The agency’s complaint also names Suman Dubey, Sam Pitroda, and Young Indian.
According to the ED, assets worth nearly ₹2,000 crore belonging to Associated Journals Limited (AJL) were allegedly acquired through questionable transactions. It claims that the Gandhis held a 76 percent stake in Young Indian, which “fraudulently” gained control of AJL’s properties in exchange for a loan of ₹90 crore.
During earlier proceedings, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the ED, argued that the case presents a “neat question of law” and termed the trial court’s reasoning as “patently perverse.” He stressed that the issue should be decided on legal principles rather than factual disputes and said the ruling could hinder similar cases.
However, the trial court held that the prosecution complaint was “not maintainable” without an FIR for the predicate offence under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA). It observed that the investigation stemmed from a private complaint filed by BJP leader Subramanian Swamy and noted that despite a 2014 summoning order, the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) did not register an FIR.
In its appeal, the ED has warned that the trial court’s ruling could create a legal loophole in money laundering cases, particularly those originating from private complaints. The agency argued that serious allegations cannot be dismissed purely on technical grounds or restrictive interpretations of the law.
With the High Court now set to hear the matter on May 25, the case is expected to play a significant role in shaping the legal framework surrounding money laundering investigations in India.
Leave Your Comment