Only case where ED proceeded on private complaint: Sonia and Rahul Gandhi to Delhi High Court on National Herald case

Congress leaders Rahul Gandhi and Sonia Gandhi have told the Delhi High Court that the Enforcement Directorate’s (ED) National Herald money laundering case against them is a result of “extraneous” considerations.  

They have argued that this was the only case in the country where the ED had proceeded based on a private complaint.

According to Gandhis' reply, the ED registered the Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR) against them based on a private complaint filed by former Union Minister Subramanian Swamy, but the same is not permitted under the law.

This shows that the National Herald case was being singled out by the ED, contrary to the agency's own interpretation of law, they claimed.

The Congress leaders have stated that the ED itself had consistently taken the position that a money laundering investigation could not be initiated in the absence of an FIR in the scheduled or predicate offence.

According to the replies, the ED did not register an ECIR on a complaint filed by Subramanian Swamy in 2014 and only registered the ECIR on June 30, 2021, about 7 years later. The Gandhis have relied on this delay to contend that the agency’s conduct was consistent with its understanding that a private complaint could not, by itself, trigger proceedings under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).

“The calculated silence of the department [ED] before the Ld Trial Court during the course of arguments and even before this Hon’ble Court in the revision petition, as to why the present case is being singled out by the department to take a different stand, contrary to law and international standards laid down by FATF, speaks volumes about the extraneous considerations surrounding the case,” the replies state. 

The National Herald case stems from a private complaint by Swamy accusing Sonia Gandhi, Rahul Gandhi, Motilal Vora, Oscar Fernandes, Suman Dubey, Sam Pitroda, and Gandhi family-controlled Young Indian of cheating, criminal conspiracy, criminal breach of trust and misappropriation of property.

The ED filed a prosecution complaint against the Gandhis as well as Pitroda and others on April 15, 2025.

However, the trial court passed an order on December 16, 2025, refusing to take cognisance of the matter.

The Court ruled that since the case was based on a private complaint filed by Swamy before a magistrate and not any First Information Report (FIR), it was not maintainable.

The ED then challenged the order before the High Court on December 17.

Rahul Gandhi and Sonia Gandhi highlight that the ED challenged the trial court order the very next day at “lightning speed”, demonstrating the “extraordinary interest” that it was taking in the case. 

“The swiftness with which the petitioner [ED] 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,” the reply states. 

The Congress leaders argue that ED’s challenge to the trial court order was not maintainable, as the judgment was legally sound and did not suffer from any jurisdictional error or illegality. 

They have said that ED’s challenge is an “abuse of the process” and should be dismissed.  

Notably, the case came up for hearing before Justice Sachin Datta today but was adjourned to October 12.

Sonia Gandhi and Rahul Gandhi's reply has been filed through advocates Sushil Bajaj, Tarannum Cheema and Kanishka Singh.