Delhi HC Issues Notice To Sonia, Rahul Gandhi On ED Plea Against Trial Court Order
In a significant development, the Delhi High Court today issued notices to Sonia Gandhi, Rahul Gandhi, and five other accused in the National Herald money laundering case on a plea by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) challenging a trial court order. The ED seeks to overturn the December 16, 2025, order by Special Judge Vishal Gogne at Rouse Avenue Courts, which refused to take cognizance of the ED's prosecution complaint under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), ruling it not maintainable without a predicate FIR (First Information Report).
The High Court also issued notice on the ED's application for a stay on the trial court order and scheduled further hearings for March 12, 2026. The ED alleges that the accused acquired assets worth Rs 2,000 crore for Rs 50 lakh. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta argued for the ED, while senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi represented Rahul Gandhi.
The ED's plea challenges the trial court's ruling that PMLA proceedings cannot proceed without a police FIR. This contention has sparked a debate on the scope of the PMLA, with implications for future probes. The ED argues that the trial court's order could undermine PMLA nationwide, especially for non-cognisable offences without FIRs. In contrast, the trial court maintains that ED's complaint is invalid without an FIR-based scheduled offence.
The case stems from allegations of money laundering linked to the National Herald newspaper, where a 2018 private complaint by BJP leader Dr. Subramanian Swamy accused Sonia and Rahul Gandhi of cheating and misappropriation in transferring Associated Journals Ltd. shares to Young Indian Pvt Ltd. (a firm they allegedly control), involving assets worth Rs 2,000 crore acquired for Rs 50 lakh via loans from the Congress party. A Delhi court took cognizance of this predicate offence (non-FIR based), enabling ED's PMLA probe.
The ED filed its complaint post-investigation, but the trial court on December 16, 2025, dismissed it for lacking an FIR, clarifying ED's investigation liberty. The High Court challenge could redefine PMLA scope: if upheld, ED gains broader powers to pursue cases from private complaints without FIRs, impacting future probes (e.g., non-cognisable offences); rejection would limit ED to FIR-triggered actions, potentially halting similar high-profile cases.
For the Gandhis and co-accused, this development delays potential summons/prosecution but prolongs legal uncertainty. No immediate arrests or asset freezes have been noted. The ongoing political scrutiny of Congress leadership amid elections adds to the complex backdrop of this case.
In a significant turn of events, the High Court has set a hearing for March 12, 2026, to consider the ED's plea. The implications of this ruling could be far-reaching, affecting the scope of the PMLA and the manner in which ED conducts future probes. As the legal battle unfolds, the stakes remain high for the accused, with the potential for significant consequences hanging in the balance.
📰 Source: India Today - Education
