The Delhi excessive court docket on Monday issued discover to senior Congress leaders Sonia Gandhi and Rahul Gandhi, amongst different accused individuals, in reference to a plea moved by the Enforcement Directorate (ED), difficult a trial court docket choice that refused cognisance of the prosecution criticism filed within the Nationwide Herald cash laundering probe.
Justice Ravinder Dudeja, who additionally heard the submissions made by Solicitor Normal Tushar Mehta showing on behalf of the federal company, heard the responses as senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi represented the Gandhis. The court docket has listed the matter for additional listening to on March 12, 2026.
Through the proceedings, Mehta, highlighting difficult the trial court docket’s choice, argued that the court docket had didn’t recognise that the related court docket had already taken cognisance of the personal criticism made by Dr Subramaniam Swamy within the Nationwide Herald case, and subsequent challenges made in opposition to the cognisance, have additionally been rejected by the Supreme Courtroom.
The SG argued, “…the trial court docket’s order brings PMLA (Prevention of Cash Laundering Act) on its head and will have a wider impression on different circumstances”.
SG Mehta submitted that the company’s actions couldn’t be restricted solely to circumstances the place an FIR has been lodged as a predicate offence, highlighting that in a number of cases, FIR will not be registered as a result of the scheduled offence is non-cognisable. “Cognisance taken on a personal criticism carries a a lot greater authorized standing than an FIR,” Mehta additional submitted.
The company’s petition, moved final week earlier than the excessive court docket, asserted that the trial court docket erroneously declined to take cognisance on a pure query of legislation with none adjudication on the deserves of the allegations.
On Tuesday, particular choose Vishal Gogne of the Rouse Avenue court docket had concluded it was impermissible in legislation to take judicial notice of the chargesheet and summon the Gandhis. The court docket’s 117-page order acknowledged that the ED’s case mirrored a unilateral overreach of the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and “an ill-advised out-pacing of the scheme of the PMLA itself”.
The trial court docket had reasoned {that a} prosecution criticism filed by an authorised officer beneath the Prevention of Cash Laundering Act (PMLA) can not relaxation on a scheduled offence arising from a personal criticism and have to be primarily based on an offence registered by a legislation enforcement company—both by a police FIR or a criticism by an individual authorised to research the scheduled offence.
Nevertheless, the ED’s petition argued that the particular choose failed to understand that cognisance taken by a reliable court docket on a personal criticism constituting the scheduled offence stands on a a lot greater footing. The order, the ED asserted, has given a “corridor move” to a class of cash launderers solely on the bottom that the scheduled offence is reported by a personal particular person by a criticism to a Justice of the Peace.
“The reasoning within the impugned order turns the essential jurisprudence on legal legislation in its personal head since it’s effectively settled that any particular person can set the legal legislation in movement,” the petition acknowledged.
A scheduled offence is a criminal offense particularly listed within the schedule of a statute such because the PMLA. These listed offences kind the authorized foundation for invoking the act and prosecuting associated actions like cash laundering.
In its chargesheet filed in April, the ED alleged that Sonia Gandhi and Rahul Gandhi illegally obtained the underlying belongings of AJL, which ran the Nationwide Herald newspaper, and purchased crores as direct proceeds of crime. The chargesheet named Sonia and Rahul Gandhi as accused No. 1 and No. 2, respectively, beneath sections 3 and 4 (which take care of cash laundering and its punishment) and part 70 (offences by corporations) of the PMLA. The costs appeal to a most imprisonment of seven years if proved.
