Delhi High Court Issues Notice to Congress Leaders in National Herald Case
Court's Response to ED's Petition
On Monday, the Delhi High Court issued notices to Congress leaders Sonia Gandhi and Rahul Gandhi, along with other defendants in the National Herald case. This action was taken in response to a petition from the Enforcement Directorate (ED), which challenged a lower court's decision that had refused to acknowledge the chargesheet filed against them. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the central investigative agency, stated that the ED has completed its investigation, gathered evidence, and conducted several search operations related to the case. He argued that the lower court erred in not taking cognizance of the ED's chargesheet.
Next Hearing Scheduled
The court has scheduled the next hearing for March 12, 2026. Justice Ravinder Dudeyja presided over the proceedings, during which Solicitor General Mehta provided a detailed account of the facts. Senior advocates Abhishek Manu Singhvi and R.S. Cheema represented the Gandhi family during the hearing. Mehta contended that the lower court failed to recognize the legal significance of a competent court taking cognizance of a private complaint, which holds more weight than a mere FIR, especially when a chargesheet has been filed.
Arguments Presented by the Solicitor General
He further explained that in this case, a competent court had already acknowledged the private complaint that constituted scheduled offenses, a decision upheld by the Supreme Court, thus placing it in a stronger position than a standard police FIR. Mehta also pointed out that the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) does not specify a method for recording scheduled offenses. He emphasized that it is sufficient to have allegations related to organized crime under the law, and these do not necessarily need to arise from an FIR.
Court's Inquiry and ED's Appeal
During the hearing, the court inquired whether the private complaint had been acknowledged following the investigation of the complainant. In response, the Solicitor General confirmed that witnesses had also been examined. He urged that a final decision on the case be made on the scheduled date. However, Senior Advocate Singhvi noted that some defendants had yet to receive notices. The ED's appeal challenges the Rouse Avenue court's order, which had declined to take cognizance of its prosecution complaint in the National Herald case. The agency argued that the lower court mistakenly believed that proceedings under the PMLA could not occur without an FIR for scheduled offenses, as there is no such condition in the statutory framework of the Act.