The Delhi High Court has granted Sonia Gandhi, Rahul Gandhi and other respondents three weeks to reply to the Enforcement Directorate’s challenge against a trial court order that halted its National Herald money laundering prosecution.
Justice Manoj Jain listed the agency’s criminal revision petition for arguments on September 10 after lawyers representing the respondents sought additional time to place their replies on record. The court directed that any response not already filed should be submitted within three weeks.
The petition challenges a December 16, 2025 order of the Rouse Avenue Court refusing to take cognisance of the Enforcement Directorate’s prosecution complaint under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act. The trial court held that the proceedings were not legally maintainable because the alleged scheduled offence had emerged from a private criminal complaint rather than a police first information report.
Besides Sonia Gandhi and Rahul Gandhi, the respondents include Suman Dubey, Sam Pitroda, Sunil Bhandari, Young Indian and Dotex Merchandise Private Limited. The agency’s prosecution complaint also referred to the late Congress leaders Motilal Vora and Oscar Fernandes.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Enforcement Directorate, argued that the trial court had committed a serious legal error. He told the High Court that the dispute involved a pure question of law and said the respondents had already been given time to file their answers.
The court, however, noted that its board was crowded with other time-bound matters and declined to take up detailed arguments on Monday. It accepted the request for further time and fixed the September hearing.
The central legal issue is whether a money laundering prosecution can proceed when the underlying scheduled offence was brought before a magistrate through a private complaint instead of an FIR registered by an investigating agency.
The Enforcement Directorate maintains that criminal proceedings may begin either through a police investigation or through a private complaint presented before a competent court. It has argued that a magistrate’s decision to take cognisance of a private complaint cannot be treated as legally weaker than the registration of an FIR.
The agency has warned that the trial court’s interpretation could exclude an entire category of alleged laundering cases from the scope of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act. It contends that the statute requires criminal activity linked to a scheduled offence but does not prescribe an FIR as the only permissible foundation for prosecution.
The High Court issued notices on the agency’s main petition and its application seeking a stay of the trial court order on December 22, 2025. During an earlier hearing in February, the Enforcement Directorate described the controversy as a narrow but significant question of law with potential consequences for other money laundering prosecutions.
The case originated from a private complaint filed in 2012 by BJP leader Subramanian Swamy. The complaint alleged cheating, criminal breach of trust and misappropriation connected to the transfer of control over Associated Journals Limited, the company that published the National Herald newspaper.
Congress had extended a loan of about Rs 90 crore to Associated Journals. Young Indian later acquired the right to recover that debt by paying Rs 50 lakh. Associated Journals subsequently allotted shares to Young Indian, giving the company control over the publisher.
Sonia Gandhi and Rahul Gandhi each held a 38 per cent stake in Young Indian, amounting to a combined shareholding of 76 per cent. Congress leaders have consistently denied wrongdoing and maintained that the transaction was intended to revive the financially troubled publishing company rather than secure personal financial gain.
The Enforcement Directorate alleges that the arrangement enabled Young Indian to obtain control over properties owned by Associated Journals that were valued at more than Rs 2,000 crore. The allegations remain contested and have not resulted in findings of guilt against the respondents.
The agency filed its prosecution complaint in April 2025 after conducting a money laundering investigation linked to the private criminal case. It named Sonia Gandhi, Rahul Gandhi and other individuals and entities while seeking the trial court’s permission to proceed with the prosecution.
