|
Sonia Gandhi and Rahul Gandhi have told the Delhi High Court that ED's money laundering case against them cannot stand. They argued thatthe case rests on a private citizen's complaint, not a police investigation.
The PMLA, they say, does not recognise that as valid grounds. Both filed separate but near-identical replies on September 18, 2026. The matter is next listed for October 12. The replies state that the words "private complaint" appear nowhere in the PMLA. They call this case the only instance in India where ED has acted on a private citizen's complaint. That complaint was filed by BJP leader Subramanian Swamy back in 2013. The Gandhis say ED is relying on "self-invented legal premises" to get around this gap. They call ED's claim that a magistrate's cognizance order outweighs an FIR an argument of convenience." The replies focus on Section 5(1) of PMLA. This provision allows ED to act only in two situations. First: a police final report filed under Section 173 CrPC. Second: a complaint filed by an officer authorised to investigate the offence. Swamy's complaint, the Gandhis argue, meets neither test. A private complainant cannot investigate. Even a magistrate's own powers of inquiry are limited. The replies add that Swamy failed to lead evidence in court for nearly a decade proof, they say, of how unreliable a private complaint is as a foundation. The Gandhis cite the Supreme Court's 2023 ruling in Vijay Madanlal Chaudhary v. Union of India. They argue it makes registration of the scheduled offence a precondition for any PMLA action. They say ED has quoted the words "private complaint" from that judgment out of context. The replies point to ED's own past conduct. They cite a technical circular from January 2015 and another from August 2015; A 2013 submission to the Central Information Commission; A 2024 RTI reply. In each, ED itself said an FIR was necessary before acting under PMLA. The ECIR in this case was registered only in June 2021 seven years after Swamy's complaint. It was shown to the trial court only after the court ordered ED to produce it, in September 2025. The replies also note a fresh FIR, registered by Delhi's Economic Offences Wing on October 3, 2025. But ED itself told the trial court it wasn't relying on that FIR either. Both Gandhis want the High Court to dismiss ED's revision petition. They call it "an abuse of the process of law." The case began with Swamy's 2013 complaint. He alleged Congress leaders conspired to acquire Associated Journals Ltd (AJL), publisher of the National Herald newspaper. The assets were worth over Rs 2,000 crore. The price paid, through Young Indian, was Rs 50 lakh. Sonia and Rahul Gandhi are majority shareholders in Young Indian. ED filed its PMLA complaint in April 2025. A special judge rejected it in December 2025. ED moved the High Court the next day. Other named parties include Sam Pitroda, Suman Dubey, Sunil Bhandari, Young Indian, and Dotex Merchandise Private Limited. (ANI)
|
