New Delhi: Congress Parliamentary Party chairperson Sonia Gandhi and Leader of Opposition in the Lok Sabha Rahul Gandhi have opposed the Enforcement Directorate’s (ED) challenge before the Delhi High Court against a trial court order concerning the National Herald money-laundering case.
In their response filed before the High Court, the Gandhis have supported the Rouse Avenue Court’s decision not to take cognisance of the ED’s prosecution complaint against them and others. They have argued that the trial court’s order contains neither a jurisdictional error nor a legal defect warranting interference by the High Court.
The ED had approached the Delhi High Court after the Rouse Avenue Court declined to take cognisance of its complaint under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA). The case concerns allegations arising from the National Herald matter and involves Sonia Gandhi, Rahul Gandhi and others. The ED’s challenge to the trial court order was reported in December 2025.
Gandhis Question Foundation of ED Proceedings
A central point raised by Sonia and Rahul Gandhi in their response is the legal basis on which the ED initiated the money-laundering proceedings.
According to their submissions, the National Herald case is unusual because the underlying proceedings originated from a private complaint rather than an FIR registered by a law-enforcement agency.
The Gandhis have relied on the ED’s position in other cases, where, according to their legal submissions, the agency has argued that a scheduled or predicate offence is necessary for initiating proceedings under the money-laundering law.
They have contended that the agency’s position in the National Herald case is inconsistent with the stance it has adopted in other proceedings.
The argument goes to the procedural foundation of the case rather than the merits of the underlying allegations. Their response asks the High Court to examine whether the ED’s prosecution complaint could legally proceed in the circumstances in which it was filed.
What The Rouse Avenue Court Had Held
The dispute before the High Court follows the December 2025 order of the Rouse Avenue Court.
In that order, Special Judge Vishal Gogne dismissed the ED’s money-laundering complaint, holding that the prosecution complaint was not maintainable because the underlying case was founded on a private complaint filed by BJP leader Subramanian Swamy rather than an FIR.
The trial court specifically considered the relationship between the original complaint proceedings and the requirements of a prosecution under the PMLA.
The ED subsequently challenged that decision before the Delhi High Court, bringing the procedural question before a higher judicial forum.
Gandhis Seek Dismissal Of ED’s Challenge
In their latest response, Sonia Gandhi and Rahul Gandhi have asked the Delhi High Court to reject the ED’s revision petition.
Their lawyers have argued that the trial court acted within its jurisdiction and that there was no legal infirmity requiring the High Court to overturn its decision.
The Gandhis have also described the ED’s approach as an alleged misuse of legal provisions, while disputing the agency’s interpretation of the procedural requirements governing money-laundering proceedings.
These are submissions made on behalf of the accused and remain subject to consideration by the High Court. The ED, for its part, is challenging the trial court’s decision and seeking judicial intervention against the refusal to take cognisance.
A Legal Battle Over Procedure
The latest development shifts attention towards an important procedural question: whether the ED’s prosecution complaint can proceed when the underlying criminal proceedings originated from a private complaint rather than an FIR for a scheduled offence.
The issue is significant because the outcome of the High Court proceedings could determine whether the ED’s complaint receives further judicial consideration at the trial stage.
For now, the High Court is examining the competing legal positions of the ED and the Gandhis. The latest response from Sonia and Rahul Gandhi does not determine the allegations in the underlying National Herald dispute; rather, it challenges the legal foundation and maintainability of the ED’s proceedings.
The case therefore remains focused on a question of criminal procedure and the interpretation of the PMLA, with the High Court’s eventual determination expected to clarify whether the ED’s complaint can proceed in its present form.
