Sonia, Rahul call ED plea in National Herald case ‘abuse of law’, seek its dismissal

Congress leaders Sonia Gandhi and Rahul Gandhi have opposed the Enforcement Directorate’s challenge to a trial court order refusing to take cognisance of its prosecution complaint in the National Herald-linked money-laundering case, calling the agency’s petition an “abuse of the process of law” and seeking its dismissal.

The Gandhis, in replies filed before the Delhi High Court, argued that the ED’s revision petition was not maintainable and that the trial court’s December 16, 2025 order was “perfectly legal and sound in law”. Justice Sachin Datta was informed Tuesday that their replies had been filed on September 18. The court listed the matter for further hearing on October 12.

Private complaint at centre

The dispute centres on whether a private criminal complaint can provide the foundation for proceedings under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) when there is no FIR in relation to the scheduled or predicate offence.

The trial court had refused to take cognisance of the ED’s prosecution complaint on December 16, holding that proceedings for the alleged money-laundering offence were not maintainable because the investigation was not founded on an FIR. The ED’s case originated from a private complaint filed by BJP leader Subramanian Swamy.

The Gandhis argued that terms such as “private complaint” or a complaint by a private citizen did not find a place in the statutory framework governing the initiation of PMLA proceedings. They contended that a private complaint could not become the foundational instrument for registration of an Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR), commencement of an investigation and subsequent prosecution.

They also claimed that the National Herald matter was the only instance in the country where the ED had proceeded under the PMLA on the basis of a private complaint.

Questions ED’s ‘lightning speed’

The Congress leaders also questioned the speed with which the ED challenged the trial court order. The order refusing cognisance was passed on December 16, 2025, and the agency approached the High Court the following day.

“The swiftness with which the petitioner proceeded in the matter speaks volumes about the extraordinary interest that the department is taking in the case,” the Gandhis said in their replies.

They alleged that the manner in which the case had been pursued raised questions about “extraneous reasons” behind the ED’s approach. These are assertions made by the Congress leaders in their court filings and have not been adjudicated upon.

The ED, on the other hand, has argued that the trial court’s interpretation would effectively create a category of alleged money launderers who could escape PMLA proceedings merely because the scheduled offence was brought before a magistrate through a private complaint instead of an FIR.

The agency has contended that once a magistrate takes cognisance of a scheduled offence on a private complaint, the absence of an FIR cannot by itself prevent proceedings under the anti-money laundering law.

National Herald case

The ED filed its prosecution complaint in April 2025 against Sonia Gandhi, Rahul Gandhi, Sam Pitroda, Suman Dubey and others. It has alleged money laundering and conspiracy in connection with the acquisition of Associated Journals Limited (AJL), publisher of the National Herald, by Young Indian.

The agency has alleged that Young Indian acquired control over assets belonging to AJL, which it valued at approximately Rs 2,000 crore, in connection with a Rs 90-crore loan transaction. Sonia Gandhi and Rahul Gandhi each hold 38 per cent in Young Indian. The accused have contested the allegations.

On December 22, 2025, the Delhi High Court issued notices to the Gandhis and other respondents on the ED’s main petition as well as its application seeking a stay on the trial court order.

The High Court will next take up the matter on October 12.