Delhi High Court on Monday sought responses from Sonia Gandhi, Rahul Gandhi and others on an Enforcement Directorate petition against a trial court’s refusal to consider the chargesheet in the National Herald money-laundering case.

Justice Ravinder Dudeja issued notices to the Gandhis and five others — Suman Dubey, Sam Pitroda, Young Indian (a private company), Dotex Merchandise Pvt Ltd and Sunil Bhandari — seeking their responses by March 12, the date of the next hearing.

The ED has sought a stay on the trial court order, which rejected the central agency’s chargesheet on a point of law, citing the absence of a first information report (FIR). The chargesheet was based on a private complaint lodged by BJP leader Subramanian Swamy.

Solicitor-general Tushar Mehta, representing the central agency, told the high court that the trial court had gone “horribly wrong” with its view, and that this would affect other cases, too.

Defending the ED’s chargesheet, Mehta said the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) does not mention the manner of registration of the complaint. He argued that a criminal complaint stood on a much higher footing than
an FIR.

Mehta took the high court through the private complaint, which he said the trial court had already taken cognisance of and had been approved by higher courts.

He said that after an investigation, ED officials gather evidence and other material and then file a prosecution complaint, much like the police file a report.

Senior advocates Abhishek Singhvi and R.S. Cheema appeared for the Gandhis.

Singhvi disputed the ED’s submissions but said he would accept the notice and file a reply. “I want to say something. I am only saying that there is a perspective which is contrary to what my friend is saying,” he said.

The Gandhis and the others are accused of acquiring properties worth about ₹2,000 crore belonging to Associated Journals Limited, publisher of the National Herald newspaper.

According to the ED, the Gandhis held a majority 76 per cent share in Young Indian, which “fraudulently” usurped the assets of Associated Journals in exchange for a ₹90-crore loan.

In its plea, the ED said such grave allegations could not be brushed aside just by relying on judicial precedents and concluding that the ingredients of the alleged criminal offences were lacking.

“The sole ground given for declining cognisance is that a prosecution complaint filed by an authorised officer under the PMLA cannot be based on a scheduled offence emanating from a private complaint filed by a private individual and such scheduled offence must be registered only by a law enforcement agency, that is, either by way of an FIR by the police or a complaint by a person authorised to investigate the scheduled offence,” the plea said.