National Herald Case: Delhi High Court Defers ED’s Plea Against Sonia And Rahul Gandhi To April 20th

The Delhi High Court on Monday adjourned the hearing of a plea filed by the Enforcement Directorate challenging a trial court order that had refused to take cognisance of the agency’s prosecution complaint against several Congress leaders in the alleged National Herald linked money laundering case. The matter will now be heard on April 20.

Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma said the court would not be able to hear the matter on the scheduled date and agreed to grant a short adjournment after a request from the agency’s counsel.

Appearing for the Enforcement Directorate, Additional Solicitor General S V Raju requested the court to list the matter soon for hearing. Accepting the request, the bench adjourned the case to April 20.

The case arises from the Enforcement Directorate’s challenge to a December 16, 2025 order passed by a trial court which held that it could not take cognisance of the agency’s prosecution complaint under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. The trial court had concluded that the complaint was legally unsustainable because it was not based on a First Information Report relating to the scheduled offence.

Earlier, on December 22, the High Court had issued notice on the Enforcement Directorate’s plea to several respondents including senior Congress leaders Sonia Gandhi and Rahul Gandhi. Notices were also issued to Suman Dubey, Sam Pitroda, the company Young Indian, Dotex Merchandise Pvt Ltd and Sunil Bhandari.

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 company Young Indian, were involved in a conspiracy relating to the alleged laundering of assets belonging to Associated Journals Limited, the publisher of the National Herald newspaper.

According to the agency, properties worth nearly ₹2,000 crore belonging to Associated Journals Limited were taken over through a financial arrangement involving Young Indian. The agency claims that the Gandhis held a majority stake of 76 percent in Young Indian and that the company acquired control of Associated Journals Limited in exchange for a ₹90 crore loan.

During an earlier hearing on February 19, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta appeared on behalf of the Enforcement Directorate and argued that the case involved a clear legal issue regarding the interpretation of provisions under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act. He submitted that the reasoning adopted by the trial court to decline cognisance of the prosecution complaint was legally flawed.

Mehta argued that the matter should be decided purely on legal principles and not on factual disputes. According to him, the conclusions reached by the trial court were “patently perverse” and were creating difficulties in the prosecution of similar cases.

The trial court in its December 16, 2025 order had taken the view that an investigation and subsequent prosecution complaint under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act cannot be sustained unless it is based on a scheduled offence that has been registered through a formal First Information Report. It noted that the case in question stemmed from a private complaint filed by Subramanian Swamy and not from an FIR registered by a law enforcement agency.

The trial court also pointed out that despite the complaint filed by Swamy and the summoning order issued in 2014, the Central Bureau of Investigation had not registered an FIR relating to the alleged scheduled offence.

Challenging this, the Enforcement Directorate has argued that the trial court’s approach could create a loophole in the enforcement of money laundering laws. According to the agency, the order effectively gives a “hall pass” to certain categories of offenders simply because the underlying scheduled offence originated from a private complaint rather than an FIR registered by the police.

The agency has further submitted that the allegations in the case are serious and involve the alleged misappropriation of valuable assets belonging to Associated Journals Limited. It has argued that such allegations cannot be dismissed at the threshold by relying solely on the technical ground that the scheduled offence arose from a private complaint.

In its plea, the Enforcement Directorate has emphasised that once a competent court takes cognisance of a private complaint, it stands on a stronger legal footing than a mere FIR registered by the police. The agency has contended that there is no legal bar preventing a prosecution complaint under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act from being based on such proceedings.

The High Court will now examine these legal questions when the matter comes up for hearing on April 20th.

Case Title: Enforcement Directorate v. Sonia Gandhi & Anr.

Source: PTI