- High Court to decide ED complaint’s validity without FIR.
Congress leaders Sonia Gandhi and Rahul Gandhi have filed their replies before the Delhi High Court opposing the Enforcement Directorate’s challenge to a trial court order in the National Herald-linked money laundering case. The ED had moved the High Court after the Rouse Avenue Court refused to take cognisance of its complaint against the Gandhis and others. The trial court had held that the ED’s complaint could not proceed in the absence of an FIR for the scheduled offence.
Gandhis Challenge ED action
In their response, Sonia and Rahul Gandhi have opposed the ED’s revision petition and argued that the agency’s action amounts to a misuse of the law.
The Gandhis have questioned the basis on which the ED initiated its proceedings, arguing that the National Herald case is unusual because it originated from a private complaint rather than an FIR registered by a law-enforcement agency.
The original complaint in the case was filed by BJP leader Subramanian Swamy before a magistrate. The Rouse Avenue Court had relied on this procedural aspect while refusing to take cognisance of the ED’s prosecution complaint in December 2025.
The Gandhis have also referred to what they describe as the ED’s position in other cases. According to their response, the agency has previously argued that a money-laundering case under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act requires a predicate offence, with an FIR forming the basis for the scheduled offence.
They have contended that the ED has adopted a different position in the National Herald case, despite its earlier stance in other proceedings.
Also Read: ‘Majlis Will Have A Candidate In Kanpur’: Owaisi’s Big UP Poll Plan
‘Dismiss ED Plea’
Sonia and Rahul Gandhi have backed the Rouse Avenue Court’s decision and told the Delhi High Court that there was no jurisdictional error or legal infirmity in the trial court order.
They have therefore urged the High Court to dismiss the ED’s revision petition challenging the lower court’s decision.
The ED, meanwhile, has challenged the trial court’s refusal to take cognisance, arguing that the proceedings should not be rejected merely because the scheduled offence originated from a private complaint. The agency has maintained that a court taking cognisance of such a complaint provides a sufficient legal foundation for subsequent proceedings under the PMLA.
The Delhi High Court is examining whether the ED’s prosecution complaint can proceed in the absence of an FIR for the scheduled offence, making the issue of the legal basis for the investigation central to the proceedings.
Also Read: ‘My Son Was Suffering’: Sahil Wakode’s Parents Allege Torture, Casteist Abuse At IIT Bombay
Disclaimer : This story is auto aggregated by a computer programme and has not been created or edited by DOWNTHENEWS. Publisher: abplive.com
