Full Breakdown
National Herald Money-Laundering Case: Gandhi Challenge to the Enforcement Directorate’s Revision Petition
By Drooid · · How we work
Core Event – High Court Challenge to Enforcement Directorate's (ED)’s Appeal
Congress leaders Sonia Gandhi and Rahul Gandhi have filed written responses in the Delhi High Court contesting the ED’s revision petition that seeks to overturn a Delhi trial court order dated December 16, 2025. The trial court held that the ED’s money-laundering complaint could not be taken into cognizance because it was based on a private complaint rather than a First Information Report (FIR).
Background & Context
The case stems from a private complaint lodged in 2013 by BJP leader Dr Subramanian Swamy, alleging that senior Congress figures conspired to acquire the assets of Associated Journals Ltd (AJL), the publisher of the *National Herald*. The ED filed a prosecution complaint under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) on April 15, 2025. The trial court rejected the complaint on December 16, 2025, reasoning that PMLA proceedings require a predicate offence FIR, which was absent. The ED subsequently filed a revision petition on December 17, 2025, prompting the current High Court proceedings.
Timeline of Key Proceedings
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2013 | Swamy files private complaint alleging conspiracy over AJL assets. |
| April 15, 2025 | ED files PMLA prosecution complaint. |
| December 16, 2025 | Trial court rules cognizance “impermissible in law” due to lack of FIR. |
| December 17, 2025 | ED files revision petition in Delhi High Court. |
| September 18, 2026 | Sonia and Rahul Gandhi submit replies to the High Court. |
| September 22, 2026 | High Court hearing before Justice Sachin Datta; matter listed for further hearing on October 12. |
| December 22, 2025 | High Court issues notice to the Gandhis and other parties on the ED’s petition. |
Legal Issues and Arguments
1. Statutory Basis of a Private Complaint – The Gandhis contend that Section 5(1) of the PMLA permits ED action only when (a) a police final report under Section 173 of the CrPC is filed, or (b) a complaint is made by an authorised investigating officer. They argue that Swamy’s private complaint does not satisfy either condition.
2. Requirement of a Predicate Offence FIR – Citing the Supreme Court’s 2023 judgment in Vijay Madanlal Chaudhary v. Union of India, they assert that registration of the scheduled offence FIR is a prerequisite for any PMLA proceeding.
3. Procedural Anomalies – The Gandhis highlight that the ED filed its revision petition within 24 hours of the trial court’s order, arguing that such haste bypasses normal internal approvals.
4. Consistency of ED’s Past Position – The responses reference ED internal circulars (2015) and a 2024 Right-to-Information reply, which, according to the Gandhis, state that an FIR is mandatory before initiating PMLA action.
Official Statements & Responses
- Trial Court (Dec 16, 2025) – Held that cognizance of the ED’s complaint was “impermissible in law” as it was not founded on an FIR.
- ED Position (Dec 17, 2025) – Argues that allowing the trial court’s ruling would create a “hall pass” for money-launderers whose scheduled offence is reported only via a private complaint.
What’s Next
The Delhi High Court has scheduled further arguments for October 12. The court will consider whether the ED’s revision petition can be dismissed on the grounds articulated by the Gandhis—lack of statutory authority to initiate PMLA proceedings on a private complaint and the procedural irregularities in the ED’s filing. No further hearings or decisions have been announced.
