ED's National Herald Case Cannot Stand on Private Complaint, Sonia, Rahul Gandhi Tell Delhi HC

Sonia and Rahul Gandhi Challenge ED's National Herald Case

Congress leaders Sonia Gandhi and Rahul Gandhi have told the Delhi High Court that the Enforcement Directorate's prosecution complaint in the National Herald money-laundering case is legally unsustainable because it is based on a private complaint rather than an FIR for a scheduled offence under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).

The Gandhis filed separate but substantially similar replies on September 18 while opposing the ED's challenge to a trial court order that had refused to take cognisance of the agency's complaint. The Delhi High Court is scheduled to hear the matter on October 12, 2026.

The latest submissions concern the legal maintainability of the ED proceedings. They do not amount to a final judicial determination on the allegations in the National Herald matter.

What Have the Gandhis Argued?

The replies filed on behalf of Sonia and Rahul Gandhi argue that the PMLA framework does not recognise a "private complaint" as the basis for initiating the ED's money-laundering proceedings in the circumstances of this case.

Their lawyers have argued that the ED's case ultimately rests on a complaint filed by BJP leader Subramanian Swamy rather than an FIR registered by a law-enforcement agency for the scheduled offence.

The Gandhis have contended that the statutory framework requires the underlying scheduled offence to be properly registered before the ED can proceed with a money-laundering prosecution complaint.

Why Is the FIR Issue Important?

The dispute centres on the relationship between a scheduled offence under the PMLA and a money-laundering investigation.

The Gandhis' legal position is that the ED cannot independently proceed with the PMLA case when the underlying scheduled offence was not registered through an FIR.

The trial court adopted a similar reasoning in December 2025 when it refused to take cognisance of the ED's prosecution complaint. It held that the ED's investigation and prosecution complaint were not maintainable in the absence of an FIR relating to the scheduled offence.

The question before the High Court is therefore substantially one of statutory interpretation and procedure.

What Did the Trial Court Decide?

On December 16, 2025, Special Judge Vishal Gogne refused to take cognisance of the ED's prosecution complaint against Sonia Gandhi, Rahul Gandhi and others.

The court held that the ED's prosecution complaint was not founded on an FIR concerning the scheduled offence and concluded that cognisance was impermissible in the circumstances before it.

The ruling did not amount to a finding that all allegations surrounding the National Herald matter had been disproved. Rather, the court's decision focused on whether the ED could legally initiate the PMLA prosecution in the manner it had done.

ED Has Challenged the Trial Court Order

The Enforcement Directorate subsequently approached the Delhi High Court challenging the trial court's decision.

The agency has argued that the lower court adopted an overly restrictive interpretation of the PMLA framework. According to the ED's position, the absence of an FIR should not automatically prevent a money-laundering prosecution where the scheduled offence originated from a private complaint.

The agency has argued that the trial court's interpretation could create a category of alleged money-laundering cases that could not proceed simply because the scheduled offence was initially brought through a private complaint.

The High Court will have to consider these competing interpretations.

What Was the Original Complaint?

The National Herald matter originated with a criminal complaint filed by BJP leader Subramanian Swamy in 2013.

The complaint alleged financial irregularities involving the acquisition of Associated Journals Ltd, the publisher of the National Herald newspaper, by Young Indian.

A Delhi court subsequently summoned Sonia Gandhi, Rahul Gandhi and others in 2014. The case has gone through several rounds of litigation before the ED began its money-laundering investigation.

The ED later filed a prosecution complaint in connection with its money-laundering investigation.

Who Else Is Named in the ED Proceedings?

Besides Sonia Gandhi and Rahul Gandhi, the ED's prosecution complaint has involved several other individuals and entities.

These include Young Indian, Suman Dubey, Sam Pitroda, Dotex Merchandise Pvt Ltd and Sunil Bhandari, among others named in proceedings arising from the ED's case.

The Delhi High Court had issued notices to the respondents after the ED challenged the trial court's December 2025 order.

Gandhis Question the Basis of ED Action

In their replies, Sonia and Rahul Gandhi have argued that the National Herald case represents an unusual situation because the ED's proceedings were initiated on the basis of a complaint by a private individual.

They have claimed that the PMLA does not contain a statutory mechanism allowing such a private complaint to substitute for the required police process in relation to the scheduled offence.

Their submissions therefore focus on the legal foundation of the ED's case rather than asking the High Court to determine the underlying allegations at this stage.

ED and Gandhis Present Different Legal Positions

The dispute can broadly be understood through two competing positions:

IssueGandhis' positionED's positionBasis of casePrivate complaint cannot substitute for FIRPrivate complaint-originated proceedings can support ED actionPMLA requirementScheduled offence must have the required FIR/procedureAbsence of FIR should not automatically invalidate proceedingsTrial court rulingGandhis rely on the December 2025 reasoningED says the trial court's interpretation was legally incorrectCurrent stageReplies filed before Delhi HCED's challenge pendingNext hearingOctober 12, 2026October 12, 2026

The table summarises the parties' respective legal positions and should not be read as a finding by the High Court.

What Happened Before the Current Hearing?

The Delhi High Court had earlier granted Sonia Gandhi, Rahul Gandhi and other respondents time to file their replies to the ED's petition.

In July 2026, the court granted the respondents three weeks to respond and listed the matter for a subsequent hearing.

The replies have now been filed, allowing the High Court to proceed with consideration of the legal arguments raised by both sides.

The National Herald Case Has a Long Legal History

The dispute has been in the courts for more than a decade.

After Swamy filed his complaint in 2013, a Delhi court summoned Sonia and Rahul Gandhi in 2014. The Supreme Court subsequently allowed the underlying criminal proceedings to continue.

The ED later launched its money-laundering investigation and conducted searches connected with the case. In 2023, the agency said it had provisionally attached properties valued at about Rs 751.9 crore linked to Young Indian and Associated Journals Ltd.

The PMLA Authority subsequently upheld the attachment in 2024, according to the documented case timeline.

ED Filed Prosecution Complaint in 2025

In April 2025, the ED filed a prosecution complaint naming seven persons, including Sonia Gandhi and Rahul Gandhi, in connection with its money-laundering investigation.

The matter then reached the trial court, which considered whether the ED's complaint could legally be taken cognisance of.

In December 2025, the court declined to do so, triggering the ED's appeal before the Delhi High Court.

What Does 'Taking Cognisance' Mean?

Taking cognisance is the stage at which a court formally applies its mind to an alleged offence for the purpose of proceeding with the case.

The December 2025 trial court decision therefore did not amount to a full trial or a verdict on whether Sonia Gandhi, Rahul Gandhi or the other respondents committed the alleged offences.

Instead, the court concluded that the ED's prosecution complaint could not be taken cognisance of on the legal basis presented.

The ED is now asking the High Court to overturn that procedural and legal conclusion.

What Will the Delhi High Court Consider?

The High Court will primarily have to examine the legal framework governing the ED's prosecution complaint.

Among the important questions is whether a private complaint that led to proceedings for a scheduled offence can provide the necessary foundation for subsequent PMLA proceedings.

The court may also examine the interpretation adopted by the trial court and the ED's contention that the decision imposes a requirement not expressly contemplated by the PMLA.

October 12 Hearing Will Be Important

The Delhi High Court has listed the matter for October 12, 2026.

The court will have the replies filed by Sonia Gandhi, Rahul Gandhi and the other respondents before it, along with the ED's challenge to the trial court order.

The hearing could clarify the legal position governing the ED's prosecution complaint in this particular case.

The Case Does Not Yet Establish Guilt or Innocence

The current proceedings concern whether the ED's complaint can legally proceed.

Neither the trial court's refusal to take cognisance nor the Gandhis' latest legal submissions constitute a final finding on the underlying allegations.

Similarly, the ED's allegations remain matters for judicial determination.

The High Court's eventual decision will determine whether the ED's prosecution complaint can move forward from the procedural position created by the December 2025 order.

What Happens Next?

The Delhi High Court will hear the matter on October 12.

The court will consider the ED's challenge to the trial court's refusal to take cognisance, along with the replies filed by Sonia and Rahul Gandhi and other respondents.

The outcome will determine the next procedural stage of the ED's National Herald money-laundering case.

Bottom Line

Sonia Gandhi and Rahul Gandhi have told the Delhi High Court that the ED's National Herald money-laundering case cannot stand because it originated from a private complaint rather than an FIR for the scheduled offence. Their replies challenge the legal maintainability of the ED's prosecution complaint and support the reasoning adopted by the trial court in December 2025.

The ED has challenged that trial court decision, arguing that its interpretation of the PMLA is incorrect and that a private-complaint origin should not automatically prevent money-laundering proceedings.

The Delhi High Court is scheduled to hear the matter on October 12, 2026. The hearing concerns the legal and procedural basis for the ED case and does not itself constitute a final determination of the underlying allegations.