look news india
Congress Parliamentary Party chief Sonia Gandhi and Leader of Opposition in Lok Sabha Rahul Gandhi have filed their official reply in the Delhi High Court in the alleged money laundering case related to National Herald. Both the leaders have demanded outright dismissal of the revision petition filed by the Enforcement Directorate (ED), calling it “abuse of the process of law”.
This entire controversy is related to the order of the trial court, in which the special court had clearly refused to take cognizance of the ED’s charge sheet (Prosecution Complaint). Challenging this decision of the trial court, ED had approached the Delhi High Court. Now, by filing a reply on behalf of the Gandhi family through a senior advocate, serious legal questions have been raised on the legality of the entire action of the investigating agency.
The biggest legal argument given in the reply filed by Sonia and Rahul Gandhi is that there is no provision for prosecution on the basis of ‘Private Complaint’ in the entire statutory framework of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).
According to the reply, there can be only two pre-conditions for initiating an investigation into a financial offense under Section 5(1) of the PMLA—either a final report (chargesheet/FIR) filed by the police under Section 173 CrPC, or a formal complaint lodged by an officer authorized to investigate. Since the National Herald case is based on a private complaint filed by BJP leader Subramanian Swamy in 2013-14 and no original FIR was lodged by any investigating agency, the ED’s direct filing of ECIR and initiation of prosecution is completely illegal and baseless in law.
Congress leaders have also raised questions on the methods and time limit of the investigating agency in their affidavit. The reply said that Subramanian Swamy’s complaint was from 2014, but the ED did not register any case at that time and maintained a “calculated silence” on it for nearly seven years. After this, ECIR was suddenly filed on June 30, 2021.
The reply further said that when the trial court refused to take cognizance of the charge sheet on 16 December 2025 due to lack of legal basis, the ED filed a petition in the High Court the very next day on 17 December, showing extraordinary haste i.e. “lightning speed”. According to the Gandhi family, this is the only case across the country where the ED is pursuing a money laundering case on the basis of a personal complaint, which is completely contrary to the agency’s own previous circulars and the prescribed legal standards (mandatory FIR in Predicative Offence).
Historic decisions of the Supreme Court in response Vijay Madanlal Chaudhary vs Union of India (2022/2023) Has been mentioned in detail. According to this decision, money laundering is not an independent offense under PMLA, but is dependent on a ‘Scheduled Offence’. If there is no valid FIR or legal investigation for the original scheduled offence, the PMLA action automatically becomes void.
The Gandhi family argued that the ED was giving a fabricated argument to make the summons order issued by the magistrate appear bigger than the FIR, which was merely an “argument of convenience”. The trial court’s December 16 judgment is completely legally flawless and free from any jurisdictional or procedural flaw.
This entire matter is related to the acquisition of the assets of Associated Journals Limited (AJL).
-
AJL used to publish ‘National Herald’ newspaper.
-
It is alleged that the Congress party first gave an interest-free loan of ₹90 crore to AJL.
-
Later in 2010, a new non-profit company called ‘Young Indian’ was formed, in which Sonia Gandhi and Rahul Gandhi held 76% stake.
-
Young Indian got a loan of ₹ 90 crore transferred from the Congress Party to his name by paying just ₹ 50 lakh and in return acquired majority shares of AJL.
-
The complainant and the ED allege that through this a criminal conspiracy was hatched to wrongfully gain control over immovable properties of AJL worth about ₹2,000 crore spread across the country. At the same time, Congress has always said that Young Indian is a not-for-profit company (Section 25 Company), from which no shareholder can take personal financial benefit of even a single rupee.
Before the single bench of Justice Sachin Dutta of Delhi High Court, the lawyers of the Gandhi family informed on Tuesday that their written reply has been filed. The court recorded the arguments of all the parties and scheduled the next detailed hearing of the case. 12 October 2026 Has been listed for. In the upcoming hearing, it will be decided whether ED’s review petition is hearable or the trial court’s decision not to take cognizance will remain intact.