The Delhi High Court on Monday did not take the Enforcement Directorate (ED) petition regarding the National Herald money laundering case. The case was listed for hearing before Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma. As per the details, the matter will now be heard on May 25. The agency had approached the High Court challenging an earlier decision of the trial court. The trial court had refused to take cognisance of the chargesheet filed against Congress leaders Sonia Gandhi, Rahul Gandhi and several others in connection with the case. According to officials, the ED argues that the trial court order requires judicial review and that the material submitted in the chargesheet warrants formal cognisance.
Notices issued to Gandhis and others
Earlier, on December 22, the High Court had issued notices to the Gandhis and several others in both the main petition and the ED's application seeking a stay on the trial court's December 16, 2025, order. The trial court had ruled that taking cognisance of the agency's complaint was "impermissible in law" since it was not based on an FIR. Apart from the Gandhis, notices were also issued to Suman Dubey, Sam Pitroda, Young Indian, Dotex Merchandise Pvt Ltd and Sunil Bhandari.
ED alleges conspiracy and financial irregularities
The ED has alleged that Sonia Gandhi, Rahul Gandhi, along with late Congress leaders Motilal Vora and Oscar Fernandes, were part of a conspiracy involving money laundering. The agency has also named Suman Dubey, Sam Pitroda and Young Indian in its complaint.
According to the ED, assets worth nearly Rs 2,000 crore belonging to Associated Journals Limited were allegedly acquired through questionable means. It has been claimed that the Gandhis held a 76 per cent stake in Young Indian, which "fraudulently" took control of AJL's properties in exchange for a loan of Rs 90 crore.
Legal arguments and trial court observations
During earlier proceedings, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the ED, argued that the case revolves around a "neat question of law" and described the trial court’s reasoning as "patently perverse". He emphasised that the matter should be decided on legal principles rather than factual disputes and said the findings were "coming in the way" of similar cases.
However, the trial court had held that the prosecution complaint was "not maintainable" without an FIR for the predicate offence listed under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act. It noted that the investigation originated from a private complaint filed by BJP leader Subramanian Swamy and pointed out that despite the 2014 summoning order, the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) did not register an FIR.
ED flags wider implications
In its petition, the ED has argued that the trial court's ruling effectively provides a loophole for certain money laundering cases, especially where the predicate offence stems from a private complaint. The agency insisted that the allegations against the accused are serious and cannot be dismissed solely on technical grounds or prior judicial interpretations.
ALSO READ: National Herald case: Relief for Gandhis as Delhi court refuses to take cognisance of ED case
