ED appeal an abuse of legal process, Gandhis tell High Court

Sonia Gandhi and Rahul Gandhi have said it is an abuse of the process of law that the ED has challenged in the Delhi High Court a trial court order refusing to take cognisance of its chargesheet against them in the National Herald-linked money laundering case. They argued the ED's revision plea is not maintainable and the trial court order is legally sound. Their counsel told Justice Sachin Datta replies were filed on Sept 18; the matter is listed for Oct 12.

Written by AI from Times of India — Top · not yet reviewed by an editor · Published 23 Sept 2026, 5:33 am IST

Source

Times of India — Top · read the original report ↗

#national herald#enforcement directorate#sonia gandhi#rahul gandhi#delhi high court#money laundering

Desk check · compared with the source

What the desk checked (5)

Sonia Gandhi and Rahul Gandhi called ED's high court challenge an 'abuse of the process of law'. — Attributed in the source to the Gandhis' response filed in the Delhi High Court; quoted directly.
The Gandhis' counsel told Justice Sachin Datta on Tuesday that replies were filed on Sept 18; the matter is listed for Oct 12. — Procedural detail attributed to court proceedings in the source; dates appear as given.
On Dec 16, 2025, the trial court held cognisance of ED's complaint was 'impermissible in law' as it was not founded on an FIR. — Attributed to the trial court order; note the December 2025 date sits oddly with September/October hearing dates in the same report — desk should verify.
CBI did not register an FIR despite Subramanian Swamy's complaint and the 2014 summoning order. — Presented in the source as part of the trial court's reasoning; no separate sourcing given.
ED said the order gives a 'hall pass' to money launderers where the scheduled offence is reported by a private individual. — Attributed to ED's submission; figure-free characterisation, not independently assessed.

Written by AI from Times of India — Top · not yet reviewed by an editor · How we use AI · Report an error

Analysts’ view opinion

AI Political Analyst

placeholder

Deep dive

Research brief · 8 facts · 5 dates · exam-ready

The brief

Context

The Enforcement Directorate has been probing an alleged money laundering case linked to the National Herald newspaper, in which Congress leaders Sonia Gandhi and Rahul Gandhi are named. On December 16, 2025, a Delhi trial court refused to take cognisance of the ED's complaint (chargesheet), holding that cognisance was "impermissible in law" because the probe rested on a private complaint by BJP leader Subramanian Swamy rather than an FIR for the scheduled offence. The ED has filed a revision petition in the Delhi High Court against that order, and the Gandhis have now replied, calling the appeal an abuse of the process of law. Justice Sachin Datta has listed the matter for October 12.

Key facts

Sonia Gandhi and Rahul Gandhi have told the Delhi High Court that the ED's challenge to the trial court order is an "abuse of the process of law".
The Gandhis argued the ED's revision plea is "not maintainable" and that the trial court order is "perfectly legal and sound in law" with no jurisdictional error, perversity, irregularity or illegality.
On December 16, 2025, the trial court held that taking cognisance of the ED's complaint was "impermissible in law" as it was not founded on an FIR.
The trial court said the ED's probe stemmed from a private complaint and not an FIR.
Despite receiving BJP leader Subramanian Swamy's complaint and the consequent summoning order in 2014, the CBI did not register an FIR on the alleged scheduled offence.
The Gandhis contended that the words 'private complaint' or 'a complaint by a public person/citizen' do not appear in the applicable statutory framework.
The Gandhis said this is the only instance where a non-statutory complaint by a private person has been made the foundation for initiating PMLA proceedings.
The ED argued the trial court order effectively gives a "hall pass" to a category of money launderers merely because the scheduled offence was reported by a private individual to a magistrate.

Timeline

2014CBI receives Subramanian Swamy's complaint and the consequent summoning order, but refrains from registering an FIR on the alleged scheduled offence.
December 16, 2025Trial court holds that cognisance of the ED's complaint is "impermissible in law" as it is not founded on an FIR.
September 18Sonia Gandhi and Rahul Gandhi file their replies opposing the ED's revision plea in the Delhi High Court.
Tuesday (as reported)Justice Sachin Datta is informed by the Gandhis' counsel that replies were filed on Sept 18.
October 12Delhi High Court lists the matter for hearing.

Who has a stake

Sonia Gandhi and Rahul Gandhi — Accused in the National Herald-linked money laundering case; seek dismissal of the ED's revision plea and protection of the trial court order in their favour.
Enforcement Directorate (ED) — Its complaint has been refused cognisance; argues the ruling shields money launderers where the scheduled offence is reported by a private complaint.
Delhi High Court (Justice Sachin Datta) — Must decide whether the ED's revision plea is maintainable and whether the trial court order suffers any legal infirmity.
Trial court — Its December 16, 2025 order holding cognisance impermissible without an FIR is under challenge in revision.
CBI — Its decision not to register an FIR despite Swamy's 2014 complaint and summoning order is central to the dispute over the scheduled offence.
Subramanian Swamy (BJP leader) — Original private complainant whose complaint is said to be the foundation of the ED's probe.
Congress party — Its top leadership faces prolonged criminal proceedings with political consequences.

Why it matters

The case tests a basic question of PMLA practice: whether an ED money laundering prosecution can be built on a private complaint to a magistrate when no FIR exists for the underlying scheduled offence. The High Court's answer will shape how predicate offences are established in future ED cases, well beyond this politically charged matter. It also keeps the criminal exposure of the Congress's top leadership legally alive or forecloses it.

UPSC angle

Prelims pointers

National Herald-linked money laundering case: ED complaint against Sonia Gandhi and Rahul Gandhi; matter before Delhi High Court bench of Justice Sachin Datta.
Trial court order of December 16, 2025: cognisance of ED complaint "impermissible in law" as it was not founded on an FIR.
PMLA (Prevention of Money Laundering Act) proceedings require a scheduled (predicate) offence; here the scheduled offence was never registered as an FIR by CBI.
Subramanian Swamy's private complaint and the summoning order date to 2014; CBI did not register an FIR thereafter.
ED has approached the High Court by way of a revision plea; the Gandhis contest its maintainability.
Replies filed on September 18; High Court listed the matter for October 12.

Mains framing

The dispute turns on the statutory architecture of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, under which prosecution for laundering is parasitic on a scheduled or predicate offence. The trial court found that the ED's complaint could not be taken cognisance of because no FIR existed for the scheduled offence — the ED's probe traced instead to a private complaint filed by a BJP leader before a magistrate in 2014, on which the CBI never registered an FIR. The Gandhis argue that the terms 'private complaint' or 'complaint by a public person/citizen' find no place in the statutory framework, that this is the only instance of a non-statutory private complaint forming the basis of PMLA proceedings, and that the ED's revision is both unmaintainable and an abuse of process. The ED counters that such a reading grants a "hall pass" to launderers whenever the predicate offence surfaces through a private complaint rather than police registration — a genuine enforcement gap if a magistrate-triggered process cannot feed into PMLA. The way forward lies in the High Court clarifying the evidentiary threshold for a predicate offence under the PMLA, so that neither procedural formality defeats legitimate prosecution nor an agency bypasses statutory preconditions; clarity here also reduces the scope for allegations that investigative agencies are used selectively against political opponents.

Key terms

Enforcement Directorate (ED): Central agency that investigates money laundering and foreign exchange offences; petitioner before the Delhi High Court here.
PMLA: Prevention of Money Laundering Act, the law under which the ED's complaint against the Gandhis was filed.
Scheduled offence: The underlying or predicate crime listed under the PMLA without which a money laundering prosecution cannot stand; here no FIR was registered for it.
Cognisance: A court's formal act of taking note of an offence to begin proceedings; the trial court refused it as the complaint was not founded on an FIR.
Revision plea: A petition asking a higher court to examine a lower court's order for jurisdictional error, perversity or illegality; the route the ED has taken.
Private complaint: A complaint filed directly before a magistrate by an individual rather than an FIR registered by police; Subramanian Swamy's 2014 complaint in this case.

Practice questions

Can proceedings under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act be validly initiated where the scheduled offence is reported through a private complaint to a magistrate and no FIR is registered? Discuss with reference to the National Herald case.
"A money laundering prosecution is only as strong as its predicate offence." Examine this statement in light of the Delhi trial court's December 16, 2025 order refusing cognisance of the ED's complaint.
Discuss the institutional safeguards needed to ensure that central investigative agencies are perceived as impartial when prosecuting political leaders.

Grounded only in the source report — figures and dates are the source's, not inferred.

Next storyEight-hour shift for textile workers not applicable: SGCCI →

← All stories