A Delhi court Tuesday declined to take cognizance of the Enforcement Directorate’s prosecution complaint filed in an alleged Rs 2,000-crore money laundering case, effectively halting the case against senior Congress leaders Sonia and Rahul Gandhi, and five others.
Dismissing the ED complaint, Special Judge Vishal Gogne of Rouse Avenue Court said, “This court can reach no conclusion other than finding a predicate offence, registered through a FIR to be the sine qua non for initiating investigation under the PMLA.”
In a 117-page order, the court declined to take cognizance of the money laundering offence primarily on two grounds: that the CBI had not even filed an FIR, establishing a predicate offence that could trigger a money laundering probe, and that the ED probe was based solely on a private complaint by former BJP leader Subramanian Swamy.
A prosecution complaint by the ED is akin to a chargesheet filed in the case. The special court’s cognizance is necessary to initiate prosecution in the case.
“Since the present prosecution complaint pertaining to money laundering is founded on cognizance and summoning order upon a complaint by a public person, namely Dr Subramanian Swamy, and not upon an FIR, cognizance of the present complaint is impermissible in law,” the judge said.
“Certainly, the ED, as an investigation agency dealing with the proceeds of crime, cannot be training or involving individual complainants like Dr. Swamy, akin to ‘Nodal Officers’ or ‘LEAs’ in terms of the FATF report,” the order noted.
LEAs or Law Enforcement Agencies are designated ED officials who file the complaint based on the information from the investigation agency probing the predicate offence.
Story continues below this ad
The court noted that the ED’s case was based not on an FIR by another agency but only on an order by a magistrate in 2014 issuing a summons against the accused to appear before the court.
“An FIR is a jurisdictional trigger. Despite receiving the complaint from Subramaniam Swamy, the CBI refused to register an FIR. However, the ED filed an ECIR when no FIR registered was in place in relation to the scheduled offence,” the judge said.
The order also noted that in July 2014, the ED had dispatched a letter to the CBI for appropriate action based on a perusal of the complaint by Swamy. In September 2015, the Director of the ED again wrote to the Director of the CBI, enclosing the complaint from Swamy along with the order of the magistrate’s 2014 summons requesting him to “take necessary action, if deemed fit”.
The court criticised the ED’s actions as “ill-advised” and an “overreach”, initiating a money laundering probe on its own when the CBI refused to act. The ED, it said, “simply inverted the template of money laundering”.
Story continues below this ad
The ED’s chargesheet in the case was filed on April 9 this year.
The ED’s prosecution team told The Indian Express that the agency is likely to appeal against the trial court ruling before the Delhi High Court.
While it declined to take cognizance, the court refused to comment on the merits of the case since the ED has another case to pursue its investigation. In November, the Delhi Police Economic Offences Wing (EOW) filed an FIR based on information shared by Shiv Kumar Gupta, Assistant Director of the ED with the EOW. The 2014 summoning order is also the basis for ED’s complaint to the EOW.
“In view of the ongoing further investigation by the ED in consequence of the FIR registered by the EOW, Delhi on 03.10.2025, it is now premature and imprudent for the court to decide the submissions made by the ED as well as the proposed accused in relation to the merits of the allegations,” the judge said.
Story continues below this ad
The case originated in 2012 from a criminal complaint filed by Swamy against the Gandhis and other leaders of the Congress, whom he accused of fraud in acquiring the property of Associated Journals Limited (AJL), the publisher of the National Herald newspaper. This case is currently being heard before a magistrate’s court and is at the stage of evidence.
Other than the Gandhis, Congress leaders Suman Dubey and Sam Pitroda have been named as accused in this case. Two firms, Young Indian and Dotex Merchandise Pvt Ltd, are also named as accused.
According to the ED, 99% of AJL’s shares were allegedly transferred to a private firm called Young Indian for “a mere Rs 50 lakh”, even though the value of AJL’s properties exceeded Rs 2,000 crore. The Gandhis hold shares of 38% each in Young Indian, a not-for-profit charitable company.
According to the ED, senior Congress leaders provided an interest-free loan of Rs 90 crore to AJL for a “consideration of just Rs 50 lakh”. The agency claimed that the Congress leaders created Young Indian only to launder Rs 2,000 crore.
Story continues below this ad
In May 2019, the ED had attached a 3,360-sqm plot, located in Panchkula’s Sector 6, which had been re-allotted to AJL by the then Congress government of Bhupinder Singh Hooda.
