Delhi HC Denies ED Interim Relief in National Herald Case
The Delhi High Court refused the ED's plea to stop AJL from seeking the release of attached assets in the National Herald money laundering case.
The Delhi High Court has delivered a significant setback to the Enforcement Directorate (ED) by declining to grant interim relief in the high-profile National Herald money laundering case. Justice Sachin Datta refused the agency's request to prevent Associated Journals Limited (AJL)—an entity controlled by the Gandhi family—from approaching the PMLA Appellate Tribunal to seek the release of its attached assets.
The Legal Tug-of-War Over Attached Assets
The core of the dispute lies in the assets provisionally attached by the ED, which include approximately Rs 752 crore worth of immovable properties and equity shares. This includes the iconic Herald House located on Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg. The ED argued that the accused are attempting to use a recent trial court order to secure the release of these properties, which the agency claims would grant them undue immunity.
The agency's contention rests on the idea that the legal process should not allow those accused of money laundering to bypass the implications of the trial court's decision, especially when the underlying offense stems from a private complaint.
The Trial Court's Decisive Ruling
This legal battle follows a pivotal decision made on December 16, 2025, by Special Judge Vishal Gogne. The trial court had refused to take cognizance of the money laundering complaint filed by the ED against several key figures, including:
- The Gandhi family
- Young Indian Private Limited (YIL)
- Associated Journals Limited (AJL)
The trial court ruled that the ED's complaint was not legally sustainable because it was not founded on a First Information Report (FIR). Instead, the prosecution was based on a private complaint originally filed by former Union Minister Subramanian Swamy.
Arguments from Both Sides
The ED has maintained that its complaint, filed under sections 44 and 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), is valid. The agency asserts that the law does not make a distinction between cases initiated via police reports and those initiated through private complaints to a magistrate.
In contrast, the Gandhi family has hit back, labeling the ED's petition as an "abuse of the legal process." Their legal team argues that:
- The trial court's order is legally sound and free from jurisdictional errors or irregularities.
- The PMLA does not permit criminal proceedings to be initiated based solely on a private complaint.
The Delhi High Court has now scheduled the next hearing for November 2, as both sides prepare to argue the merits of the ED's challenge against the trial court's decision.