New Delhi: Congress leaders Sonia Gandhi and Rahul Gandhi have termed as "abuse of the process of law" a plea filed in the Delhi High Court by the Enforcement
Directorate challenging a trial court order refusing to take cognisance of its charge sheet against them in the National Herald-linked money laundering case. In their response, the Gandhis have opposed the ED's revision petition saying it is "not maintainable" as the trial court's order is "perfectly legal and sound in law and does not suffer from any jurisdictional error, perversity, irregularity or illegality". On Tuesday, Justice Sachin Datta was informed by the Gandhis' counsel that they have filed the replies on September 18. The court listed the matter for further hearing on October 12. "The petitioner (ED) has miserably failed to demonstrate that the complaint filed by the ED was maintainable on the basis of the statutory provisions, applicable to the case. It is writ large that the words 'private complaint' or 'a complaint by a public person/citizen', do not find any place in the entire statutory framework," the replies, filed through advocates Sushil Bajaj, Tarannum Cheema and Kanishka Singh, said. On December 16, 2025, the trial court had held that cognisance of the agency's complaint in the case was "impermissible in law" as it was not founded on an FIR. In its order, the trial court had said that an investigation and the consequent prosecution complaint (equivalent to a chargesheet) pertaining to the offence of money laundering were "not maintainable" in the absence of an FIR for the offence mentioned in the schedule to the PMLA. It had said the agency's probe stemmed from a private complaint, and not an FIR, and despite receiving the complaint made by BJP leader Subramanian Swamy and the consequent summoning order in 2014, the CBI refrained from registering an FIR in relation to the alleged scheduled offence. The ED, in its plea in the high court, claimed that the trial court order has in effect given a hall pass to a category of money launderers only on the ground that the scheduled offence is reported by a private individual by way of a complaint to a magistrate. Opposing the ED's plea, the Gandhis said this case provides the only instance where a non-statutory complaint by a private person has been made the foundation of initiating proceedings under the PMLA. "Faced with this impasse, the petitioner is embarking upon an endeavour to find support from general and convenient self-invented legal premises. Leaving the relevant statutory provisions aside it is being canvassed that a private complaint culminating in the passing of a cognisance order, is even superior to an FIR, which has no judicial confirmation. It is an argument of convenience," the reply, settled by senior advocate R S Cheema, said. It added that a private complaint, under no circumstances, can serve as a foundational instrument for registration of an ECIR under the Act, incitation of investigation and launching of the prosecution. The Gandhis said they have filed the reply only on the legal issue involved in the matter and prayed that the ED's petition be "dismissed being an abuse of process of law". The reply also mentioned that the ED has filed the petition in the high court at a "lightning speed" as the order was passed by the trial court on December 16, 2025 and the agency approached the high court on December 17. "The swiftness with which the petitioner proceeded in the matter speaks volumes about the extraordinary interest that the department is taking in the case. "This approach when seen in light of the fact that the present case is apparently one single instance in the entire country where the department has proceeded on basis of a private complaint leaves a lot to be answered on the extraneous reasons which weighed with the petitioner to move with undue haste, given the fact that in such cases layers of approvals are required to be taken before filing," it said. It said that in the Act itself there is absolutely no mention of the words 'private complaint' and this is unequivocal reflection of the legislative intent. The reference made in the Act, in terms of what constitutes action taken in the predicate offence to contemplate action under the PMLA, is restrained to investigation in form of an FIR or a complaint by a person authorised to investigate. On December 22, 2025, the high court had issued notice to the Gandhis and others on the main petition as well as on the ED's application seeking a stay on the December 16 trial court order, which held that cognisance of the agency's complaint in the case was "impermissible in law" as it was not founded on an FIR. Besides the Gandhis, the high court also issued notices to Suman Dubey, Sam Pitroda, Young Indian, Dotex Merchandise Pvt Ltd and Sunil Bhandari on the ED's plea. The ED has accused Sonia and Rahul Gandhi, as well as late Congress leaders Motilal Vora and Oscar Fernandes, along with Dubey, Pitroda, and the private company Young Indian of conspiracy and money laundering. It has been alleged that they acquired properties worth approximately Rs 2,000 crore belonging to the Associated Journals Limited (AJL), which published the National Herald newspaper. It also alleged that the Gandhis held 76 per cent shares in Young Indian, which "fraudulently" usurped the assets of AJL in exchange for a Rs 90 crore loan.
