Gandhis' "Extraneous Considerations" Charge In National Herald Case

Congress leaders Rahul Gandhi and Sonia Gandhi have filed their written response in the Delhi High Court in the National Herald case.

They have alleged that the Enforcement Directorate's (ED) action was influenced by "extraneous considerations." They argued that this is the only case in the country where the ED has proceeded with a money laundering investigation based on a private complaint.

In their response, the Gandhis said the ED registered an ECIR against them based on a private complaint filed by former Union Minister Subramanian Swamy, even though such a course of action is not permitted under law.

Rahul Gandhi and Sonia Gandhi contended that the ED itself has consistently maintained that a money laundering investigation cannot begin unless there is an FIR in a scheduled/predicate offence.

According to their response, Swamy filed the private complaint in 2014, but the ED did not register an ECIR at that time. The ECIR was registered nearly seven years later, on June 30, 2021.

The two leaders cited this delay as supporting their case, arguing that it indicates the ED itself believed that action under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) could not be initiated solely on the basis of a private complaint.

The response states that before both the trial court and the High Court, the ED has not explained why this case is being treated differently from other cases.

They argued that the ED's conduct demonstrates that the National Herald case has been singled out for separate treatment.

They further stated that the ED's "calculated silence" on the issue raises questions about why a different approach has been adopted in this case, allegedly contrary to the law and international FATF standards.

The National Herald case originated from a private complaint filed by Subramanian Swamy, who accused Sonia Gandhi, Rahul Gandhi, Motilal Vora, Oscar Fernandes, Suman Dubey, Sam Pitroda, and Young Indian, a company controlled by the Gandhi family, of fraud, criminal conspiracy, criminal breach of trust, and misappropriation of property.

On April 15, 2025, the ED filed a prosecution complaint against Rahul Gandhi, Sonia Gandhi, Sam Pitroda and others.

However, on December 16, 2025, the trial court refused to take cognisance of the case. The court held that the matter was based on Swamy's private complaint before a magistrate and not on an FIR, and therefore could not proceed on that basis.

The very next day, December 17, 2025, the ED challenged the trial court's order before the Delhi High Court.

Rahul and Sonia Gandhi argued that the agency approaching the High Court the very next day reflected the ED's "extraordinary interest" in the matter.

Their response stated that the speed with which the challenge was filed, particularly in a matter requiring approvals at multiple levels, raises questions about the ED's "undue haste."

They have argued that the ED's appeal before the High Court is not legally maintainable, since the trial court's order was in accordance with law and suffered from neither jurisdictional error nor illegality.

The two leaders have described the ED's petition as an "abuse of the legal process" and sought its dismissal.

The matter came up before Justice Sachin Datta, who adjourned the hearing until October 12.