Delhi HC Issues Notice on ED’s Plea Against Trial Court Order Refusing Cognisance Against Rahul, Sonia Gandhi in National Herald Case

The Delhi High Court on Monday, December 22, 2025, issued notice on the Enforcement Directorate’s plea challenging a trial court order that declined to take cognisance of its chargesheet against Congress leaders Sonia Gandhi, Rahul Gandhi, and others in the National Herald case.

A bench of Justice Ravinder Dudeja, while issuing notice, directed that notice be served on all respondents in both applications. The matter has been listed for further hearing on March 7, 2026.

Appearing for the ED, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta argued that the impugned trial court order “brings the PMLA on its head” and could have far-reaching consequences for other cases under the statute.

“The argument was that any offence can be taken cognisance of only if the predicate offence is by way of an FIR culminating in a report under Section 173 and not otherwise. Since this was a private complaint, the threshold is very high because if I file a private complaint, I go before the competent court. The competent court under the statute is obliged to satisfy itself about my credentials and to satisfy itself that the offence is made out. That court has taken cognisance, but the sum and substance of the impugned order is that if someone goes and files a one-page FIR before the police, that can be the subject matter of any investigation. But if the competent court takes cognisance under Section 200, that cannot be a ground on which cognisance can be taken. That is how the court bifurcates,” SG Mehta submitted.

SG Mehta further told the court that cognisance of the predicate offence in the present case had already been taken, and that challenges to such cognisance had been rejected up to the Supreme Court.

He argued that the trial court had “gone horribly wrong” in holding that the ED cannot act once a court has taken cognisance of a private complaint. The Solicitor General also highlighted situations where an FIR may not be registered because the scheduled offence is non-cognisable, contending that the ED’s powers cannot be confined only to FIR-based predicate offences.

SG Mehta contended that the sum and substance of the trial court’s order is that only an FIR can give rise to an ED offence, even where a court has already taken cognisance after recording a finding that a prima facie case exists.

On the other hand, senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, appearing for Rahul Gandhi, informed the court that there was a contrary perspective to the submissions advanced by the ED.

Following this, the court indicated that it would record the submissions and issue notice to the respondents.

The ED has challenged the December 16 order passed by Special Judge Vishal Gogne, who observed that while the ED is at liberty to continue further investigation, the Court cannot presently proceed to take cognisance of the prosecution complaint.

The Trial Court had noted that the ED's case originates from a private complaint filed by BJP leader Subramanian Swamy and the subsequent summoning orders passed by a magistrate, rather than from a registered FIR.

In such circumstances, the judge held, cognisance of the chargesheet could not be taken in the manner sought by the prosecution.

The Delhi Police's Economic Offences Wing had registered a fresh FIR against Congress leaders Sonia Gandhi and Rahul Gandhi, acting on a detailed complaint from the Enforcement Directorate that alleges a criminal conspiracy and a Rs 988 crore money laundering scheme in the National Herald matter.

According to the complaint, the alleged conspiracy began in 2010 when the All India Congress Committee assigned its right to recover a loan of Rs 90.21 crore from AJL to Young Indian for Rs 50 lakh. AJL thereafter converted this entire outstanding loan into equity by issuing more than 9 crore shares to Young Indian. This resulted in Young Indian acquiring 99 percent control over AJL and its properties.

The agency has also cited additional alleged irregularities: the collection of Rs 18.12 crore in bogus donations to meet a tax demand, the creation of Rs 38.41 crore in fake advance rent receipts without actual rental agreements, and doubts over the genuineness of Rs 29.45 crore in advertising revenue claimed by AJL's publications. The ED has quantified the total proceeds of crime at Rs 988.03 crore. This includes the value of AJL shares (Rs 90.21 crore), underlying properties (Rs 755.15 crore), and rental income accrued since the takeover (Rs 142.67 crore). Properties worth Rs 751.91 crore have already been attached.

Case Title: ED v. Sonia Gandhi & Anr

Bench: Justice Ravinder Dudeja

Hearing Date: 22 December 2025