National Herald Case: Court Gives Gandhis 3 Weeks to Reply as ED Challenges Trial Court Order
The Delhi High Court on Monday granted three weeks to Congress leaders Sonia Gandhi, Rahul Gandhi and others to respond to a plea by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) challenging a trial court order. The lower court had refused to take cognisance of the ED's chargesheet against them in the National Herald-linked money laundering case.
Justice Manoj Jain, who presided over the hearing, stated that the court would hear the case on September 10. “We can’t hear this today. There are two other time-fixed matters today. The board is heavy,” Justice Jain said.
The senior counsel representing the respondents requested additional time to file a reply to the ED's petition. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the ED, argued that the trial court had “gone terribly wrong” in its decision. He noted that the respondents had not filed a reply despite the High Court granting them time two months earlier. “This is only a question of law. The time to file a reply was given two months ago. I can’t object to filing a reply. This is a pure question of law,” Mehta submitted.
The court subsequently ordered: “List on September 10 for arguments. Let the reply, if not already filed, be filed in three weeks.”
On December 22, 2025, the High Court had issued notice to the Gandhis and others on the main petition as well as on the ED's application seeking a stay on the December 16 trial court order. That order had held that taking cognisance of the agency’s complaint was “impermissible in law” as it was not founded on a First Information Report (FIR). Besides the Gandhis, notices were also issued to Suman Dubey, Sam Pitroda, Young Indian, Dotex Merchandise Private Limited and Sunil Bhandari.
The ED has accused Sonia Gandhi, Rahul Gandhi, the late Congress leaders Motilal Vora and Oscar Fernandes, along with Suman Dubey, Sam Pitroda, and the private company Young Indian, of conspiracy and money laundering. It is alleged that they acquired properties worth approximately Rs 2,000 crore belonging to Associated Journals Limited (AJL), which published the National Herald newspaper. The ED further alleged that the Gandhis held 76 per cent shares in Young Indian, which “fraudulently” usurped the assets of AJL in exchange for a Rs 90 crore loan.
On February 19, Solicitor General Mehta had argued before the High Court that the case concerned a “neat question of law” and that the reasons given by the trial court to refuse cognisance were “patently perverse”. He said the case had to be argued on law and not facts, and that the trial court’s findings were “coming in the way” of other cases.
In its order, the trial court had said that an investigation and the consequent prosecution complaint (equivalent to a chargesheet) pertaining to the offence of money laundering were “not maintainable” in the absence of an FIR for the offence mentioned in the schedule to the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA). It noted that the agency’s probe stemmed from a private complaint and not an FIR, and that despite receiving a complaint filed by BJP leader Subramanian Swamy and the consequent summoning order in 2014, the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) had refrained from registering an FIR in relation to the alleged scheduled offence.
The ED, in its plea before the High Court, claimed that the trial court order had effectively given a “hall pass” to a category of money launderers merely because the scheduled offence was reported by a private individual through a complaint to a magistrate. The agency argued that there were grave allegations against the Gandhis and others that could not be brushed aside lightly by relying on judicial precedents to conclude that the ingredients of the alleged criminal offences were lacking.
