The Delhi High Court on Monday (July 27, 2026) granted three weeks to Congress leaders Sonia Gandhi, Rahul Gandhi and others to respond to a plea by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) challenging a trial court order that refused to take cognisance of its chargesheet against them in the National Herald-linked money laundering case.
Justice Manoj Jain said the court will hear the case on September 10.
“We can’t hear this today. There are two other time-fixed matters today. The board is heavy,” Justice Jain said.
The senior counsel appearing for the respondents sought time to respond to the Enforcement Directorate’s (ED) petition.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the ED, said the trial court has “gone terribly wrong” in this case, and the respondents have filed no reply despite the High Court giving them time to do so two months ago.
“This is only a question of law. The time to file a reply was given two months ago. I can’t object to filing a reply. This is a pure question of law,” the solicitor general argued.
“List on September 10 for arguments. Let the reply, if not already filed, be filed in three weeks,” the court ordered.
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 Private Limited and Sunil Bhandari on the ED’s plea.
The ED has accused Sonia Gandhi and Rahul Gandhi, as well as late Congress leaders Motilal Vora and Oscar Fernandes, along with Suman Dubey, Sam Pitroda, and a 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 ₹90 crore loan.
On February 19, Solicitor General Mehta appeared for the ED and argued that the case concerned a “neat question of law” and the reasons given by the trial court to refuse to take cognisance were “patently perverse”.
He said the case has to be argued on law and not facts, and the trial court’s findings were “coming in the way” of other cases.
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 Prevention of Money Laundering Act (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 Central Bureau of Investigation (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 chargesheet by police.
Published – July 27, 2026 04:41 pm IST
