National Herald case: HC to hear ED plea against trial court order

The ED's lawyer urged that there was an urgency in the case and that adjournments were repeatedly sought by the Congress leaders.

New Delhi: The Delhi High Court on Tuesday, September 22, said it would hear on October 12 a plea by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) challenging a trial court order refusing to take cognisance of its charge sheet against Congress leaders Sonia Gandhi, Rahul Gandhi and others in the National Herald-linked money laundering case.

Justice Sachin Datta listed the matter for next month after the counsel for the Gandhis sought a date. The ED’s lawyer urged that there was an urgency in the case and that adjournments were repeatedly sought by the Congress leaders.

Gandhis’ advocates flag change in court dates

During the brief hearing, advocate Kapil Sibal, representing the Gandhis, said on the last date the judge was not holding the court at that moment and October 9 was given as the next date by the court master.

However, later in the day, they got an information that it is now fixed for September 22 and there was no communication to us on the issue of urgency.

Senior advocate Abhishek Singhvi, who was also representing the Gandhis, said today’s date was taken behind their back.

SG says matter urgent, seeks court to hear plea

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the ED, said “I am urging the court to grant an early date as there is an urgency in the matter and repeatedly we have been requesting your lordship (the court) to hear it. If it is not urgent, have it in 2030. It is not fair to us. I am respectfully saying that if Mr (Kapil) Sibal wants a date, have it in the first week of October.”

He said it was a matter where cognisance under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) was not taken by the trial court and as a consequence, the respondents (Gandhis and others) are asking before the PMLA tribunal for lifting the attachment of assets.

“If the matter is not heard on the next date also, I would urge the court for some interim order,” the law officer said and added that on the next date of hearing, he be permitted to start his submissions.

The ED’s counsel contended, “every single time they request for adjournment which is a problem.”

The court, which listed the matter for hearing on October 12, was also informed by senior advocate RS Cheema that the Gandhis have filed their replies to ED’s petition.

National Herald case

On December 22, 2025, the high court had issued notice to the Gandhis and others on the main petition as well as on the ED’s application seeking a stay on the December 16 trial court order, which held that cognisance of the agency’s complaint in the case was “impermissible in law” as it was not founded on an FIR.

Besides the Gandhis, the high court also issued notices to Suman Dubey, Sam Pitroda, Young Indian, Dotex Merchandise Pvt Ltd and Sunil Bhandari on the ED’s plea.

The ED has accused Sonia and Rahul Gandhi, as well as late Congress leaders Motilal Vora and Oscar Fernandes, along with Dubey, Pitroda and the private company Young Indian of conspiracy and money laundering.

It has been alleged that they acquired properties worth approximately Rs 2,000 crore belonging to the Associated Journals Limited (AJL), which published the National Herald newspaper.

It also alleged that the Gandhis held 76 per cent shares in Young Indian, which “fraudulently” usurped the assets of AJL in exchange for a Rs 90 crore loan.

Trial court order

In its order, the trial court had said that an investigation and the consequent prosecution complaint (equivalent to a chargesheet) pertaining to the offence of money laundering were “not maintainable” in the absence of an FIR for the offence mentioned in the schedule to the PMLA.

It said the agency’s probe stemmed from a private complaint, and not an FIR, and despite receiving the complaint made by BJP leader Subramanian Swamy and the consequent summoning order in 2014, the CBI refrained from registering an FIR in relation to the alleged scheduled offence.

The ED, in its plea in the high court, claimed that the trial court order has in effect given a hall pass to a category of money launderers only on the ground that the scheduled offence is reported by a private individual by way of a complaint to a magistrate.

It claimed there are such grave allegations levelled against the Gandhis and others, which cannot be brushed aside lightly by relying upon judicial precedents cited to conclude that the ingredients of the criminal offences alleged are lacking.

“The sole ground given for declining cognisance is that a prosecution complaint filed by an authorised officer under the PMLA cannot be based on a scheduled offence emanating from a private complaint filed by a private individual and such scheduled offence must be registered only by a law enforcement agency, that is, either by way of an FIR by the police or a complaint by a person authorised to investigate the scheduled offence,” the plea said.

The ED said the special judge has failed to appreciate that cognisance taken by a competent court on a private complaint stands on a much higher footing than a mere FIR registered by police wherein there is a possibility that cognisance may be declined after the filing of a charge sheet by police.