Delhi Court Declines to Entertain ED’s Money Laundering Case Against Gandhis in National Herald Matter

In a significant development in the long-running National Herald case, a Delhi court on Tuesday refused to take cognisance of the Enforcement Directorate’s (ED) money...

In a significant development in the long-running National Herald case, a Delhi court on Tuesday refused to take cognisance of the Enforcement Directorate’s (ED) money laundering complaint against Congress leaders Sonia Gandhi and Rahul Gandhi, along with five others. The court held that the prosecution complaint filed under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) was not legally maintainable at this stage.

The order, passed by the Rouse Avenue Court, centres on a procedural issue with far-reaching implications: the ED’s case is based on a private complaint filed by BJP leader Subramanian Swamy rather than on a police First Information Report (FIR). The court observed that, in the present circumstances, proceeding on the ED’s complaint would be “premature and imprudent.”

Why the Court Refused Cognisance

According to the court, the foundation of the ED’s case is a private criminal complaint, not an FIR registered by the police. The judge noted that the Delhi Police’s Economic Offences Wing (EOW) has already registered an FIR related to the same allegations and that the investigation by the EOW is still ongoing.

Given this parallel process, the court said it would be inappropriate to rule on the ED’s prosecution complaint at this stage. However, the court clarified that the ED is not barred from continuing its investigation and gathering evidence. The agency has indicated it will challenge the order in a higher court.

Legal experts say the ruling highlights an important safeguard built into the PMLA framework: money laundering proceedings are typically expected to flow from a clearly established “scheduled offence,” usually backed by an FIR and substantive investigation.

Political Reactions: Congress Claims Vindication, BJP Pushes Back

The Congress party swiftly welcomed the court’s decision, framing it as a blow to what it describes as politically motivated investigations.

In a post on X (formerly Twitter), the party said the ruling exposed the lack of jurisdiction in the ED’s case and accused the Narendra Modi-led government of misusing central agencies to target the principal opposition. Senior Congress leaders argued that the absence of a valid FIR undermines the very basis of the money laundering allegations.

The BJP rejected this interpretation. Party leaders insisted that the legal process is ongoing and accused the Congress of trying to portray procedural setbacks as substantive exoneration. BJP national general secretary Tarun Chugh told reporters that the Congress was reacting out of “panic and frustration.”

Several opposition leaders and allies of the Congress, including Shiv Sena (UBT) MP Priyanka Chaturvedi, also weighed in, calling the case an example of a political “witch hunt” and questioning the neutrality of investigative agencies.

What Is the National Herald Case?

The case traces its origins to November 2012, when Subramanian Swamy filed a private complaint alleging criminal conspiracy and cheating. He claimed that senior Congress leaders had fraudulently taken control of Associated Journals Limited (AJL), the company that published The National Herald, through a newly formed entity, Young Indian.

The National Herald was founded in 1938 by Jawaharlal Nehru and other Congress leaders and was long regarded as a party-aligned publication. It ceased print operations in 2008 after accumulating debts of around ₹90 crore but retained valuable real estate assets in Delhi, Mumbai, and other cities.

Investigative agencies have alleged that these properties—originally allotted for running a newspaper—were later used for commercial purposes, generating rental income. The ED has claimed that the value of AJL’s assets has risen sharply over the years, placing their current worth at several thousand crore rupees.

The ED’s Allegations

The Enforcement Directorate has accused the Gandhis and other Congress leaders, including overseas Congress chief Sam Pitroda, of conspiring to illegally take over AJL’s assets for a nominal sum. According to the agency, these assets constitute “proceeds of crime” under the PMLA, with alleged unlawful gains running into hundreds of crores of rupees.

The Congress has consistently denied these charges, maintaining that there was no personal enrichment involved and that the transactions were aimed at reviving the newspaper and settling its liabilities.

Why This Ruling Matters

While the court’s order does not amount to an acquittal or a closure of the case, it is significant for three reasons:

Procedural Clarity: It reinforces the legal requirement that money laundering prosecutions must rest on a properly established predicate offence.
Checks on Investigative Powers: The ruling underscores judicial scrutiny over how and when central agencies invoke stringent laws like the PMLA.
Political Impact: With national elections never far from the political horizon, the decision is likely to sharpen the debate over alleged misuse of investigative agencies and the independence of institutions.

The final outcome will depend on the progress of the EOW investigation and the ED’s appeal against the order.