Gandhi opposes ED plea in National Herald case, calls it ‘abuse of judicial process’

Congress Parliamentary Party (CPP) President Sonia Gandhi and Leader of Opposition in Lok Sabha Rahul Gandhi. File | Photo credit: Shiv Kumar Pushpakar

Congress leaders Sonia Gandhi and Rahul Gandhi have opposed the Enforcement Directorate’s (ED) plea in the Delhi High Court against a court order refusing to take cognizance of the agency’s complaint in a money laundering case related to the National Herald. The Gandhis called the ED petition an “abuse of the process of law”.

In their reply to the ED’s review petition, the Gandhis said the challenge was “not maintainable” and that the trial court’s order dated December 16, 2025 was “perfectly legal and in accordance with law and does not suffer from any jurisdictional error, perversity, irregularity or illegality”.

The matter came up before Justice Sachin Datta on Tuesday (September 22, 2026) when the court was informed that the Gandhis had filed their replies on September 18. The matter was tabled for further hearing on October 12.

“Unfortunately, the petitioner (ED) has not shown that the complaint filed by the ED was maintainable under the statutory provisions applicable to the case. It is written that the words ‘private complaint’ or ‘public person/citizen’s complaint’ have no place in the entire statutory framework,” their replies said.

The trial court, in its order dated December 16, 2025, held that it was “inadmissible in law” to take cognizance of the ED’s complaint as it was not based on a First Information Report (FIR).

He observed that an investigation and subsequent complaint for prosecution in a money laundering case cannot be conducted without an FIR relating to an offense listed under the PMLA.

The ED probe arose out of a private complaint filed by Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) leader Subramanian Swamy, the court said.

The ED challenged this reasoning in the High Court, arguing that the trial court’s order effectively created a category of money launderers who could escape prosecution simply because the alleged scheduled offense was presented to the Magistrate’s Court through a private complaint.

Published – 22 Sep 2026 21:44 IST