A Delhi court on Tuesday declined to take cognisance of the chargesheet filed by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) in the National Herald money laundering case, which names senior Congress leaders Sonia Gandhi and Rahul Gandhi as accused.
Special Judge Vishal Gogne of the Rouse Avenue Court observed that the ED’s prosecution complaint under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) was based on a complaint by a private individual and not on a first information report (FIR) relating to a predicate offence, making judicial cognisance impermissible under law.
“Since the present prosecution complaint is based on a complaint filed by a private person and does not arise from an FIR, the cognisance for the same is impermissible in law,” the court said while orally reading out its order.
Court Cites Procedural Grounds
The court further noted that the Delhi Police’s Economic Offences Wing (EOW) has already registered an FIR in the case, and held that it would be premature to adjudicate the ED’s chargesheet at this stage.
Clarifying its position, the court said that arguments from both sides had not touched upon the merits of the case, and therefore no opinion was being expressed on the allegations themselves.
ED Allowed to Argue Further
While declining to take cognisance, the court stated that the ED is at liberty to advance further arguments on the next date of hearing.
In a separate order, the court also refused to supply copies of the EOW FIR to the accused, ruling that they were not legally entitled to receive them, though they may access information related to the case.
ED’s Allegations in the National Herald Case
The ED, represented by Additional Solicitor General SV Raju, assisted by Special Counsel Zoheb Hossain, has alleged that the accused took control of Associated Journals Limited (AJL)—the publisher of the National Herald newspaper—through Young Indian Private Limited (YI) in a surreptitious manner.
According to the agency, AJL’s assets, valued at over ₹2,000 crore, were allegedly acquired through a loan of just ₹50 lakh, with the ED claiming to have traced ₹988 crore as proceeds of crime.
The ED further alleged that Young Indian, despite being registered as a charitable organisation, was used as a vehicle for money laundering, and that its stated charitable objectives were never realised.
Defence Rejects ED’s Claims
Counsels for Sonia Gandhi and Rahul Gandhi, Senior Advocates RS Cheema and Abhishek Manu Singhvi, strongly opposed the ED’s plea for cognisance. They argued that YI was created to revive the debt-ridden AJL and preserve the legacy of the National Herald, aligning with the Congress party’s ideological objectives.
Sonia Gandhi’s counsel submitted that no AJL assets were transferred to either YI or the Gandhis personally, and that holding shares does not amount to money laundering.
Other Accused Named
Apart from Sonia and Rahul Gandhi, the ED has also named Sam Pitroda, overseas Congress head, former journalist Suman Dubey, Young Indian Private Limited, and Dotex Merchandise, which the agency has described as a shell company allegedly involved in the transaction.
The case remains under consideration, with further hearings expected.
