Delhi High Court gives Gandhis 3 weeks to reply in ED's National Herald plea
The Delhi High Court on Monday gave Congress leaders Sonia Gandhi, Rahul Gandhi and other respondents three weeks to file their replies to the Enforcement
The Delhi High Court on Monday gave Congress leaders Sonia Gandhi, Rahul Gandhi and other respondents three weeks to file their replies to the Enforcement Directorate's plea against a trial court order in the Herald-linked money laundering case. The trial court had refused to take cognisance of the ED's chargesheet. Justice Manoj Jain said the matter would be heard on September 10. Read Full Story Besides the Gandhis, notices have also been issued to Suman Dubey, Sam Pitroda, Young Indian, Dotex Merchandise Pvt Ltd and Sunil Bhandari on the ED's petition. During the hearing, the court said, "We can't hear this today. There are two other time-fixed matters today. The board is heavy." Senior counsel for the respondents sought time to respond to the ED's petition. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the ED, said the trial court had "gone terribly wrong" and pointed out that no reply had been filed even though time had been granted two months ago. "This is only a question of law.
The time to file a reply was given two months ago. I can't object to filing a reply. This is a pure question of law," he argued. The court then ordered, "List on September 10 for arguments. Let reply, if not already filed, be filed in three weeks." On December 22, 2025, the high court had issued notice on the ED's main petition as well as its application seeking a stay on the December 16 trial court order. That order had said taking cognisance of the agency's complaint was "impermissible in law" because it was not based on an FIR. The ED has accused Sonia Gandhi, Rahul Gandhi, late Congress leaders Motilal Vora and Oscar Fernandes, along with Suman Dubey, Sam Pitroda and Young Indian, of conspiracy and money laundering. It has alleged that properties worth around Rs 2,000 crore belonging to Associated Journals Limited, which published the Herald newspaper, were acquired, and that the Gandhis held 76 per cent shares in Young Indian, which "fraudulently" usurped AJL's assets in exchange for a Rs 90 crore loan.
Earlier, on February 19, Mehta had told the high court that the case involved a "neat question of law" and that the reasons given by the trial court to refuse cognisance were "patently perverse." He said the matter had to be argued by law and not facts, and that the trial court's findings were "coming in the way" of other cases. In its order, the trial court had said the investigation and the prosecution complaint under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act were "not maintainable" without an FIR for the scheduled offence. It said the ED's probe arose from a private complaint, not an FIR, and that despite BJP leader Subramanian Swamy's complaint and the 2014 summoning order, the CBI did not register an FIR for the alleged scheduled offence. Challenging that view, the ED told the high court that the order had effectively given "a hall pass to a category of money launderers" simply because the scheduled offence was reported through a private complaint before a magistrate.
The BriefWire