The Delhi High Court will today hear a petition filed by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) in a money laundering case involving *National Herald*. This petition challenges the order of the trial court, in which it refused to take cognizance of the agency’s charge sheet. The hearing of this case is to be held before the bench of Justice Swarn Kanta Sharma. Earlier, on December 22, the High Court had issued notices to Congress leaders Sonia Gandhi and Rahul Gandhi and others. Apart from this, a notice was also issued in relation to the ED’s application, which sought to stay the trial court’s order dated December 16, 2025.
**What’s the matter?**
ED alleges that assets worth about ₹2,000 crore of Associated Journals Limited (AJL) were taken over through *Young Indian*. AJL is the organization that publishes *National Herald* newspaper. According to the agency, the Gandhi family held 76 per cent stake in *Young Indian*, and AJL’s assets were “wrongfully” acquired in exchange for a loan of ₹90 crore. Suman Dubey, Sam Pitroda, Sunil Bhandari and others have also been made parties in this case.
ED’s arguments
During the hearing, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the ED, argued that it was “purely a question of law” and the findings of the trial court were “clearly wrong”. He argued that the case should be investigated on legal grounds rather than facts, and that the lower court’s decision could hinder other cases in the future.
Why did the trial court reject the charge sheet?
In its order, the trial court had said that the investigation and prosecution under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) is not valid unless an FIR is registered for the relevant “scheduled offence”. The court further said that the ED investigation was not started on the basis of any FIR, but on the basis of a personal complaint. The complaint was filed by BJP leader Subramanian Swamy, following which the summons were issued in 2014; However, the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) did not register any FIR.
ED’s stance
In a petition filed in the High Court, the ED has argued that the trial court’s order amounts to “exemption” to the accused in cases where a ‘scheduled offence’ comes to light through a private complaint. The agency emphasizes that taking cognizance of a private complaint by a competent court is in no way inferior to an FIR lodged by the police; In fact, in many cases it is considered a stronger basis. Now, the High Court’s judgment in this case will decide how the validity of investigation and prosecution in the absence of an FIR, in cases registered under PMLA, will be established.
