Private complaint cannot be ED’s foundation for National Herald case, say Sonia, Rahul

In the National Herald case, Sonia and Rahul Gandhi have opposed the ED’s plea before the Delhi High Court.

3 min readNew DelhiUpdated: Sep 23, 2026 03:13 AM IST

The Gandhis, in their written responses filed before the HC on September 18, said “there is no question of a complaint by a private person for an offence… enabling the ED to assume jurisdiction”. (File photo)

Congress leaders Sonia Gandhi and Rahul Gandhi, opposing ED’s plea in the alleged National Herald case before the Delhi High Court, said that the case is the “single instance in the entire country where a department has proceeded on the basis of a private complaint”.

In December last year, ED moved Delhi HC challenging a trial court’s judgement a day after it was pronounced.

The trial court had refused to take cognisance of the agency’s chargesheet primarily on the grounds that Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, (PMLA) contemplates complaints by investigating officers from a probe agency, and not a private complaint from public persons.

Story continues below. Subscribe to see fewer ads.

In the National Herald case, which accused the Gandhis of money laundering, among other charges, the complaint had stemmed from former BJP MP Subramanian Swamy.

Also Read | National Herald case: Why special court ruled against ED

They flagged the necessity of a predicate offence for carrying on with ED proceedings, as is stipulated under the PMLA Act.

Gandhis also argued that because a money laundering trial must follow a strictly separate legal track from a scheduled offence trial, the ED cannot use a private individual’s complaint as “a foundational instrument for investigation”.

Story continues below this ad

They pointed out that “prosecution under the PMLA [in this case] would lead to the contrary situation, where ED shall have to take the power of investigation of scheduled offence, in the absence of any meaningful investigation”, which would be “totally antithetical to the scheme of the Act”.

The Gandhis also pointed out that the ED’s stance over the years was that “it could not launch money laundering proceedings against one company, in the absence of (predicate offence) FIR,” and that “in the absence of FIR, cognizance under PMLA could not be taken”.

“…This has been disregarded in the present case for reasons best known to the Department and ex facie patently not in accordance with settled principles of law,” the Gandhis submitted.

The case

In the National Herald case, the ED has alleged that the Gandhis, along with a few other office-bearers of the Congress, entered into a criminal conspiracy to usurp Rs 2,000-crore worth of assets of Associated Journals Limited (AJL), a public unlisted company and the publisher of the National Herald newspaper.

Story continues below this ad

The All India Congress Committee (AICC) had loaned Rs 90.21 crores to AJL.

Subsequently, Young Indian, a private not-for-profit company in which Sonia and Rahul Gandhi together held 76 per cent of the shares, purchased from AICC the right to recover the loan for Rs 50 lakh.

According to the agency, AJL simultaneously converted the outstanding loan of Rs 90.21 crore into 9.02 crore equity shares of face value Rs 10 each in favour of Young Indian, thereby defrauding the shareholders of AJL as well as the public donors of AICC.

These allegations were made by BJP leader Subramanian Swamy in a private complaint to the ED in 2014.

Sohini Ghosh

Sohini Ghosh is a Senior Correspondent at The Indian Express. Previously based in Ahmedabad covering Gujarat, she recently moved to the New Delhi bureau, where she primarily covers legal developments at the Delhi High Court Professional Profile Background: An alumna of the Asian College of Journalism (ACJ), she previously worked with ET NOW before joining The Indian Express. Core Beats: Her reporting is currently centered on the Delhi High Court, with a focus on high-profile constitutional disputes, disputes over intellectual property, criminal and civil cases, issues of human rights and regulatory law (especially in the areas of technology and healthcare). Earlier Specialty: In Gujarat, she was known for her rigorous coverage in the beats of crime, law and policy, and social justice issues, including the 2002 riot cases, 2008 serial bomb blast case, 2016 flogging of Dalits in Una, among others. She has extensively covered health in the state, including being part of the team that revealed the segregation of wards at the state’s largest government hospital on lines of faith in April 2020. With Ahmedabad being a UNESCO heritage city, she has widely covered urban development and heritage issues, including the redevelopment of the Sabarmati Ashram Recent Notable Articles (Late 2025) Her recent reporting from the Delhi High Court covers major political, constitutional, corporate, and public-interest legal battles: High-Profile Case Coverage She has extensively covered the various legal battles - including for compensation under the aegis of North East Delhi Riots Claims Commission - pertaining to the 2020 northeast Delhi riots, as well as 1984 anti-Sikh riots. She has also led coverage at the intersection of technology and governance, and its impact on the citizenry, from, and beyond courtrooms — such as the government’s stakeholder consultations for framing AI-Deepfake policy. Signature Style Sohini is recognized for her sustained reporting from courtrooms and beyond. She specialises in breaking down dense legal arguments to make legalese accessible for readers. Her transition from Gujarat to Delhi has seen her expand her coverage on regulatory, corporate and intellectual property law, while maintaining a strong commitment to human rights and lacuna in the criminal justice system. X (Twitter): @thanda_ghosh ... Read More

Loading Recommendations...

Sep 30: Latest News

Live Blog