New Delhi – The Delhi High Court has issued notice to senior Congress leaders Sonia Gandhi and Rahul Gandhi in the National Herald case, responding to an Enforcement Directorate plea challenging a trial court decision that refused to take cognisance of the prosecution complaint filed in the money laundering probe. The development marks a significant turn in the long-running case that has political and legal implications for the Congress leadership and the interpretation of money laundering laws.
High Court Proceedings and Representation
Justice Ravinder Dudeja heard submissions from Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing on behalf of the ED, along with responses from senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, who represented the Gandhis in the National Herald case. The court has scheduled the matter for further hearing on March 12, 2026, allowing time for all parties to prepare comprehensive arguments. The notice also extends to other accused persons connected to the case, indicating the broad scope of the legal challenge.
ED’s Core Arguments on Cognisance
During proceedings in the National Herald case, Mehta argued that the trial court failed to recognize that the relevant court had already taken cognisance of the private complaint made by Dr Subramaniam Swamy. He emphasized that subsequent challenges against this cognisance have been rejected by the Supreme Court. The Solicitor General contended that “the trial court’s order brings PMLA on its head and could have a wider impact on other cases,” highlighting the potential precedential implications of the decision.
Private Complaint Versus FIR Debate
The Solicitor General submitted that the agency’s actions in the National Herald case could not be restricted only to cases where an FIR has been lodged as a predicate offence. He highlighted that in several instances, FIRs may not be registered because the scheduled offence is non-cognisable. Mehta argued that “cognisance taken on a private complaint carries a much higher legal standing than an FIR,” establishing that criminal law can be set in motion by any individual, not just law enforcement agencies.
ED’s Petition Challenges Trial Court Reasoning
The ED’s petition, moved before the high court last week, asserted that the trial court erroneously declined to take cognisance on a pure question of law without any adjudication on the merits of the allegations in the National Herald case. The agency argued that the special judge failed to appreciate that cognisance taken by a competent court on a private complaint constituting the scheduled offence stands on a much higher footing than an ordinary police complaint.
Trial Court’s Original Decision
Special judge Vishal Gogne of the Rouse Avenue court had concluded it was impermissible in law to take judicial note of the chargesheet and summon the Gandhis in the National Herald case. The court’s 117-page order stated that the ED’s case reflected a unilateral overreach of the Central Bureau of Investigation and “an ill-advised out-pacing of the scheme of the PMLA itself.” The trial court reasoned that a prosecution complaint filed under PMLA cannot rest on a scheduled offence arising from a private complaint.
Trial Court’s Legal Interpretation
The trial court’s position in the National Herald case was that prosecution must be based on an offence registered by a law enforcement agency—either through a police FIR or a complaint by a person authorized to investigate the scheduled offence. This interpretation created a procedural barrier for the ED’s prosecution, leading to the current appeal before the high court seeking to overturn this restrictive reading of the law.
Also Read: Delhi Public Transport: CM Announces Massive Budget Boost to Combat Pollution
ED’s “Hall Pass” Argument
The ED asserted that the trial court’s order has given a “hall pass” to a category of money launderers only on the ground that the scheduled offence is reported by a private individual through a complaint to a magistrate in the National Herald case. The petition stated: “The reasoning in the impugned order turns the basic jurisprudence on criminal law in its own head since it is well settled that any person can set the criminal law in motion.”
Understanding Scheduled Offences
A scheduled offence is a crime specifically listed in the schedule of a statute such as the PMLA. These listed offences form the legal basis for invoking the act and prosecuting related activities like money laundering. The interpretation of how scheduled offences can be established—through private complaints versus law enforcement FIRs—lies at the heart of the legal dispute in the National Herald case.
Allegations Against Gandhi Leaders
In its chargesheet filed in April, the ED alleged that Sonia Gandhi and Rahul Gandhi illegally obtained the underlying assets of Associated Journals Limited (AJL), which ran the National Herald newspaper, and acquired crores of rupees as direct proceeds of crime in the National Herald case. The chargesheet named Sonia and Rahul Gandhi as accused No. 1 and No. 2 respectively under sections 3 and 4, which deal with money laundering and its punishment, and section 70, covering offences by companies, of the PMLA.
Potential Consequences and Legal Stakes
The charges in the National Herald case attract a maximum imprisonment of seven years if proved. Beyond the immediate implications for the accused individuals, the case carries broader significance for how PMLA provisions are interpreted and applied. The high court’s eventual decision could establish important precedents regarding the interplay between private complaints, scheduled offences, and money laundering prosecutions, potentially affecting numerous future cases beyond this particular matter.
The National Herald case continues to evolve through multiple judicial forums, with the latest development placing it before the Delhi High Court for critical legal interpretation.
