New Delhi, February 19 The Delhi High Court on Thursday listed for hearing on March 9 a plea by the ED challenging the order of the trial court that refused to take cognizance of its chargesheet against Congress leaders Sonia Gandhi, Rahul Gandhi and others in the National Herald related money laundering case.
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma granted time to the Gandhis and others to file their replies.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Enforcement Directorate (ED), objected to the request made by the counsel for the respondent leaders for additional time to file responses, saying notice was served to them two months ago.
Terming it a "clear legal issue", he said the case has to be argued on the law and not on facts, and the findings of the trial court were "hindering" other cases.
The reasons given by the trial court to refuse taking cognizance in the case were "blatantly perverse", the solicitor general said.
On December 22, the high court had issued notice to the Gandhis and others on the main petition as well as on the ED's application seeking a stay on the December 16, 2025 trial court order, which held that cognizance of the agency's complaint in the case was "impermissible in law" as it was not based on an FIR.
Besides Gandhis, the high court had also issued notices to Suman Dubey, Sam Pitroda, Young Indian, Dotex Merchandise Pvt Ltd and Sunil Bhandari on the ED's plea.
The ED has accused Sonia and Rahul Gandhi, as well as late Congress leaders Motilal Vora and Oscar Fernandes, along with Suman Dubey, Sam Pitroda, and a private company, Young Indian, of conspiracy and money laundering.
It has been alleged that they acquired properties worth approximately Rs 2,000 crore belonging to Associated Journals Limited (AJL), which publishes the National Herald newspaper.
It further alleged that the Gandhis held the majority 76 per cent shares in Young Indian, which "fraudulently" seized the assets of AJL in exchange for a Rs 90 crore loan.
In its order, the trial court has said that an investigation and the consequent prosecution complaint (equivalent to a chargesheet) pertaining to the offence of money laundering is "not maintainable" in the absence of an FIR for the offence mentioned in the schedule to the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).
It said the agency's probe stemmed from a private complaint and not an FIR and despite receiving the complaint made by BJP leader Subramanian Swamy and the consequent summoning order in 2014, the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) refrained from registering an FIR in relation to the alleged scheduled offence.
The ED, in its plea, has claimed that the trial court order has in effect given a "blank cheque" to a category of money launderers only on the ground that the scheduled offence is reported by a private individual by way of a complaint to a magistrate.
It claimed there are such grave allegations levelled against Gandhis and others which cannot be brushed aside lightly by relying upon judicial precedents cited to conclude that the ingredients of the criminal offences alleged are lacking.
"The sole ground given for declining cognizance is that a prosecution complaint filed by an authorised officer under the PMLA cannot be based on a scheduled offence emanating from a private complaint filed by a private individual and such scheduled offence must be registered only by a law enforcement agency, that is, either by way of an FIR by the police or a complaint by a person authorised to investigate the scheduled offence," the plea said.
The ED said the special judge has failed to appreciate that cognizance taken by a competent court on a private complaint stands on a much higher footing than a mere FIR registered by police wherein there is a possibility that cognizance may be declined after filing of a chargesheet by police.
"In the present matter, cognizance of the private complaint constituting the scheduled offence had already been taken by the competent court. Hence, the scheduled offence stood on a much higher pedestal than a mere FIR lodged by police," it added.
The agency added that at the time of cognizance, the scope of inquiry is very narrow and the court has to strictly restrict itself to the averments in the complaint and has to only see whether there are sufficient grounds to initiate the process.