The Enforcement Directorate (ED) has escalated its long-running battle against Congress leaders Sonia Gandhi and Rahul Gandhi, filing an appeal in the Delhi High Court on Friday (December 19) to overturn a trial court's refusal to take cognisance of its money laundering complaint in the National Herald case.
Trial court rejects ED's chargesheet
Rouse Avenue Court in Delhi recently declined to proceed with the ED's chargesheet, effectively shielding Sonia and Rahul Gandhi from immediate prosecution. The court found insufficient grounds to accept the complaint, marking a significant setback for the agency's decade-old investigation into alleged financial irregularities at the National Herald newspaper. This decision prompted swift backlash from the ED, which views it as a misinterpretation of evidence.
ED's High Court challenge
In its Delhi High Court appeal, the ED contests the trial court's findings point-by-point, arguing that the order overlooks critical evidence of money laundering. The agency seeks an appellate review to compel the lower court to register the case and summon the accused, potentially reviving raids, attachments, and trials tied to the Rs 5,000 crore probe. Sources indicate the appeal questions procedural lapses and urges the High Court to direct cognisance for a fair probe.
data
Trial court rejects ED's case: No FIR, No PMLA action
Delhi's Rouse Avenue Court ruled the ED's money-laundering chargesheet against Sonia Gandhi, Rahul Gandhi, and others legally unsustainable, as it relied solely on a private complaint by BJP leader Subramanian Swamy and a 2014 summoning order- not a registered FIR for the predicate offence.FIR essential for PMLA: Court's legal reasoning
The court stressed that PMLA Sections 3 and 4 require an FIR in the scheduled offence, deeming its investigative power "qualitatively superior" to CrPC complaints. Citing PMLA statutes, Supreme Court's Vijay Madanlal Choudhary verdict, and FATF norms- plus ED's own prior stance- it held FIR registration as a jurisdictional must for ECIR and prosecution. Without it, proceedings against the Gandhis, Sam Pitroda, Suman Dubey, Young Indian, Dotex Merchandise, and others collapse.
Merits untouched, future probes greenlit
Declining cognisance, the court avoided allegation merits and noted a new October 3, 2025, FIR by Delhi's EOW during hearings- freeing both agencies to investigate further. It upheld accused's right to pre-cognizance hearings under BNSS Section 223. ED now appeals to Delhi HC for reversal; Abhishek Manu Singhvi hailed it a "deserved victory," slamming the case as "strangest ever" with no money movement or property transfer, and AJL now under non-profit Young Indian.
National Herald Case background
The controversy stems from 2011 allegations that Congress leaders used a circuitous route, via Young Indian Pvt Limited, to acquire the debt-ridden Associated Journals Ltd (publishers of National Herald) for Rs 90.21 lakh, despite properties worth thousands of crores. ED alleges this amounted to laundering proceeds of crime, with Sonia and Rahul as key figures holding 38 per cent stakes each in Young Indian. Previous actions included asset attachments and summons, but courts have repeatedly stalled progress amid political accusations of vendetta.
