Delhi HC issues notice to Sonia, Rahul Gandhi on ED plea in National Herald case
Delhi HC issues notice to Sonia, Rahul Gandhi on ED plea in National Herald case
M.U.H
22/12/202515
The Delhi high court on Monday issued notice to senior Congress leaders Sonia Gandhi and Rahul Gandhi, among other accused persons, in connection with a plea moved by the Enforcement Directorate (ED), challenging a trial court decision that refused cognisance of the prosecution complaint filed in the National Herald money laundering probe.
Justice Ravinder Dudeja, who also heard the submissions made by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta appearing on behalf of the federal agency, heard the responses as senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi represented the Gandhis. The court has listed the matter for further hearing on March 12, 2026.
During the proceedings, Mehta, highlighting challenging the trial court’s decision, argued that the court had failed to recognise that the relevant court had already taken cognisance of the private complaint made by Dr Subramaniam Swamy in the National Herald case, and subsequent challenges made against the cognisance, have also been rejected by the Supreme Court.
The SG argued, “…the trial court’s order brings PMLA (Prevention of Money Laundering Act) on its head and could have a wider impact on other cases”.
SG Mehta submitted that the agency’s actions could not be restricted only to cases where an FIR has been lodged as a predicate offence, highlighting that in several instances, FIR may not be registered because the scheduled offence is non-cognisable. “Cognisance taken on a private complaint carries a much higher legal standing than an FIR,” Mehta further submitted.
The agency’s petition, moved last week before the high court, asserted that the trial court erroneously declined to take cognisance on a pure question of law without any adjudication on the merits of the allegations.
On Tuesday, special judge Vishal Gogne of the Rouse Avenue court had concluded it was impermissible in law to take judicial note of the chargesheet and summon the Gandhis. The court’s 117-page order stated that the ED’s case reflected a unilateral overreach of the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and “an ill-advised out-pacing of the scheme of the PMLA itself”.
The trial court had reasoned that a prosecution complaint filed by an authorised officer under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) cannot rest on a scheduled offence arising from a private complaint and must be based on an offence registered by a law enforcement agency—either through a police FIR or a complaint by a person authorised to investigate the scheduled offence.
However, the ED’s petition argued that the special judge failed to appreciate that cognisance taken by a competent court on a private complaint constituting the scheduled offence stands on a much higher footing. The order, the ED asserted, has given a “hall pass” to a category of money launderers only on the ground that the scheduled offence is reported by a private individual through a complaint to a magistrate.
“The reasoning in the impugned order turns the basic jurisprudence on criminal law in its own head since it is well settled that any person can set the criminal law in motion,” the petition stated.
A scheduled offence is a crime specifically listed in the schedule of a statute such as the PMLA. These listed offences form the legal basis for invoking the act and prosecuting related activities like money laundering.
In its chargesheet filed in April, the ED alleged that Sonia Gandhi and Rahul Gandhi illegally obtained the underlying assets of AJL, which ran the National Herald newspaper, and acquired crores as direct proceeds of crime. The chargesheet named Sonia and Rahul Gandhi as accused No. 1 and No. 2, respectively, under sections 3 and 4 (which deal with money laundering and its punishment) and section 70 (offences by companies) of the PMLA. The charges attract a maximum imprisonment of seven years if proved.
