The High Court will hear arguments on September 10 as it considers the Enforcement Directorate’s challenge to a trial court’s refusal to take cognisance of its money laundering complaint.
Also Read | Viral Trump Lookalike Buffalo Rescue: Saved From Eid Sacrifice
Add businessleague.in as a Preferred Source
The Delhi High Court on Monday granted Sonia Gandhi, Rahul Gandhi and other respondents three weeks to file their replies to the Enforcement Directorate’s (ED) petition in the National Herald-linked money laundering case.
Justice Manoj Jain scheduled the matter for hearing on September 10, when the court is expected to consider the legal issues raised by the ED against an earlier trial court order.
High Court issues timeline for responses
Apart from Sonia Gandhi and Rahul Gandhi, notices have also been issued to Suman Dubey, Sam Pitroda, Young Indian, Dotex Merchandise Pvt. Ltd. and Sunil Bhandari.
During the hearing, the court observed that its board was heavily occupied and accepted the respondents’ request for additional time to file their replies.
The court directed that any remaining replies be submitted within three weeks before the next hearing.
ED challenges trial court order
The Enforcement Directorate has approached the High Court after a trial court declined to take cognisance of its prosecution complaint in the National Herald case.
Also Read | Viral Trump Lookalike Buffalo Rescue: Saved From Eid Sacrifice
The agency has argued that the trial court committed a legal error in refusing to proceed with the complaint.
Appearing for the ED, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta told the court that the matter primarily involves a question of law rather than disputed facts. He argued that the respondents had already been given sufficient time to respond and maintained that the trial court’s findings were legally incorrect.
Why did the trial court reject the complaint?
In its order dated December 16, 2025, the trial court held that the ED’s prosecution complaint under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) could not proceed because it was not based on a First Information Report (FIR) for the scheduled offence.
The court observed that the investigation originated from a private complaint instead of an FIR registered by a law enforcement agency.
According to the trial court, the absence of an FIR meant the prosecution complaint was not maintainable under the applicable legal framework.
ED disputes interpretation of law
The Enforcement Directorate has challenged that interpretation before the High Court.
The agency argues that a prosecution complaint under the PMLA should not be rejected solely because the scheduled offence originated from a private complaint rather than a police FIR.
According to the ED, a competent court taking cognisance of a private complaint carries legal significance and should not automatically prevent proceedings under the anti-money laundering law.
The agency has also argued that the trial court’s reasoning could have wider implications for similar cases involving alleged money laundering offences.
Also Read | Viral Trump Lookalike Buffalo Rescue: Saved From Eid Sacrifice
Allegations in the National Herald case
The ED’s complaint alleges a conspiracy and money laundering involving Associated Journals Limited (AJL) and Young Indian, a company in which the agency claims Sonia Gandhi and Rahul Gandhi together held a 76% shareholding.
According to the ED, assets belonging to AJL, reportedly valued at around ₹2,000 crore, were allegedly acquired through transactions involving a ₹90 crore loan.
The agency has named Sonia Gandhi, Rahul Gandhi, late Congress leaders Motilal Vora and Oscar Fernandes, along with Suman Dubey, Sam Pitroda and Young Indian in its complaint.
The respondents have denied wrongdoing, and the allegations remain subject to judicial proceedings.
Next hearing on September 10
The High Court will next hear the matter on September 10, when arguments are expected to focus on whether a complaint under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act can proceed in cases where the scheduled offence originates from a private complaint instead of an FIR.
The outcome could have implications for the interpretation of procedural requirements under the PMLA in future cases.
Also Read | Viral Trump Lookalike Buffalo Rescue: Saved From Eid Sacrifice
FAQ
What did the Delhi High Court decide?
The High Court granted Sonia Gandhi, Rahul Gandhi and other respondents three weeks to file their replies to the ED’s petition and scheduled the next hearing for September 10.
Why is the ED challenging the trial court order?
The ED argues that the trial court incorrectly refused to take cognisance of its PMLA complaint because it was based on a private complaint rather than an FIR.
What is the key legal issue?
The central issue is whether a money laundering complaint under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act can proceed when the underlying scheduled offence originates from a private complaint instead of a police FIR.
What are the allegations in the National Herald case?
The ED alleges that assets of Associated Journals Limited were improperly acquired through Young Indian. The accused have denied the allegations, and the matter remains before the courts.
Also Read | Viral Trump Lookalike Buffalo Rescue: Saved From Eid Sacrifice
Add businessleague.in as a Preferred Source
