Senior leaders said the court’s refusal to proceed underscored flaws in the agency’s case under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act linked to the affairs of Associated Journals Limited, the publisher of the National Herald. They argued that the decision exposed what they described as pressure tactics deployed through investigative agencies against opposition figures and insisted accountability must follow at the highest level of government.
Paraphrasing the thrust of the stand-off, party leaders said Congress intensifies challenge after ED rebuff, asserting that the judicial outcome validated their claim that the allegations lacked legal foundation. The demand for resignations, they said, was rooted in the principle of ministerial responsibility and the alleged erosion of institutional neutrality.
At a briefing, Congress leaders said cadres across states were “agitated” and prepared to demonstrate their strength, alleging selective enforcement and intimidation. The party announced that it would take its message to the streets and legislatures, portraying the case as emblematic of a broader pattern involving central agencies and opposition leaders from multiple parties.
The court’s order came after scrutiny of the ED’s complaint seeking prosecution for alleged laundering connected to transactions involving AJL and Young Indian, a not-for-profit entity in which Sonia Gandhi and Rahul Gandhi are shareholders. Defence arguments have consistently maintained that the transactions did not generate proceeds of crime and that the structure of the arrangements did not meet statutory thresholds for laundering. The ED has maintained that the case involves illicit gains and control over assets; the court, at this stage, did not accept the complaint for cognisance, leaving open procedural options available to the agency.
Legal observers noted that a refusal to take cognisance does not amount to an acquittal, but it does require the prosecution to address deficiencies identified by the court before seeking further action. For Congress, the distinction mattered less than the political signal, with leaders presenting the order as vindication of their long-held position.
The government rejected the resignation demand, reiterating that investigative agencies operate independently and that courts, not politicians, decide outcomes. Ruling party leaders accused Congress of attempting to politicise judicial processes and warned against pressure tactics directed at institutions. They pointed to ongoing legal remedies available to all sides and the separation of powers as safeguards against misuse.
The episode has sharpened an already polarised climate ahead of a packed political calendar, with opposition parties watching closely to gauge whether the Congress’s mobilisation resonates beyond its base. Some regional leaders echoed concerns about agency overreach, while others adopted a cautious tone, wary of conflating legal outcomes with political messaging.
Beyond the immediate sparring, the case has renewed debate over the scope and safeguards of financial crime laws, including thresholds for prosecution, timelines, and judicial oversight. Critics argue that prolonged investigations without trial erode reputations and democratic competition, while proponents insist robust tools are necessary to tackle complex economic offences.