Delhi HC issues notice to Sonia, Rahul Gandhi on ED's appeal in National Herald case

The Court has scheduled a further hearing on March 12, 2026.

Justice Ravinder Dudeja heard the matter. Appearing for the ED, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta placed a detailed factual chronology before the Court. Senior Advocates Abhishek Manu Singhvi and R.S. Cheema represented the Gandhi family during the proceedings.

Addressing the Court, the Solicitor General argued that the trial court erred in law by failing to appreciate that cognisance taken by a competent court on a private complaint carries a higher legal standing than a mere FIR, where cognisance may still be refused even after a chargesheet is filed. He submitted that in the present matter, cognisance of the private complaint constituting the scheduled offence had already been taken by a competent court and upheld up to the Supreme Court, placing it on a far firmer footing than a simple police FIR.

Mehta further contended that the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) does not prescribe the mode or manner in which a scheduled offence must be registered. What is required under the statute, he said, is the existence of an allegation of criminal activity relating to a planned offence, without mandating that it must arise from an FIR rather than a criminal complaint. Emphasising that the issue warrants examination, he stated that he was prepared to satisfy the Court and sought the issuance of notice.

During the hearing, the Court asked whether cognisance had been taken of the private complaint after the complainant was examined. Responding in the affirmative, the Solicitor General informed the bench that witnesses had also been examined. He urged that the matter be finally adjudicated on the return date and requested that it be heard. However, Senior Advocate Singhvi stated that some respondents had yet to be served.

In its appeal, the ED has challenged the Rouse Avenue Court's order declining to take cognisance of its prosecution complaint in the National Herald case. The agency has argued that the trial court erred in holding that proceedings under the PMLA cannot be maintained in the absence of an FIR for the scheduled offence, contending that such a requirement is not provided for in the Act's statutory framework.

According to the ED, criminal proceedings can be initiated either through a police case or a private complaint. Once a competent court has taken cognisance of the scheduled offence, and the higher courts have upheld the order, the origin of the offence becomes immaterial.

The agency has further submitted that cognisance taken on a private complaint reflects judicial application of mind at the threshold stage and therefore stands on a higher footing than a mere FIR.

The appeal arises from the trial court's refusal to take cognisance of the ED's complaint against Sonia Gandhi, Rahul Gandhi, Sam Pitroda, Suman Dubey, Young Indian, Dotex Merchandise Pvt Ltd and others. While the trial court clarified that it was not examining the merits of the allegations and permitted further investigation following a subsequent FIR registered by the Economic Offences Wing (EOW), Delhi, it held the prosecution complaint, as filed, to be legally unsustainable. (ANI)