Justice Sachin Datta declined on Monday to order the parties to maintain the status quo while the court examines the agency’s challenge to a trial court decision refusing to take cognisance of its prosecution complaint against Congress leaders Sonia Gandhi and Rahul Gandhi, among others.
The judge said no interim order would be passed at this stage and listed the matter for further hearing on November 2. The decision leaves AJL free to press its application before the appellate tribunal under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), without determining whether the attached assets should ultimately be released.
Additional Solicitor General S V Raju, representing the ED, argued that the companies involved were relying on the trial court’s December 16, 2025 ruling to secure release of assets already attached by investigators. He sought an order preserving the existing position until the High Court ruled on the agency’s challenge.
Raju told the bench that the trial court’s refusal to proceed with the complaint was being used to obtain relief before the tribunal. After Justice Datta declined to intervene, the law officer suggested that the parties could instead seek an adjournment of the tribunal proceedings. The judge did not issue such a direction.
The properties include Herald House on Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg in Delhi, which houses premises associated with AJL, the publisher of the National Herald. Other assets linked to the company in Mumbai and Lucknow have also been subject to attachment proceedings.
The ruling concerns the immediate handling of the assets rather than the merits of the money laundering allegations. An attachment under the PMLA restricts dealings in specified property, while the appellate tribunal can consider challenges to the attachment. The High Court’s refusal to impose a temporary restraint does not itself cancel the ED’s attachment orders.
The agency’s appeal follows a December ruling by Special Judge Vishal Gogne at Delhi’s Rouse Avenue Courts. The judge declined to take cognisance of the prosecution complaint, holding that the money laundering proceedings could not be founded on the private criminal complaint underlying the case without the required registration or investigation of a scheduled offence.
The dispute centres on the legal foundation necessary for proceedings under the PMLA. The ED maintains that a private complaint on which a competent court has taken cognisance can establish the necessary underlying offence. It argues that the trial court adopted an unduly restrictive interpretation of the legislation.
Sonia Gandhi and Rahul Gandhi have opposed that position. Their response to the High Court argues that a private complaint cannot substitute for the legally recognised basis required to begin a money laundering investigation and prosecution. They have contested both the agency’s procedural approach and its allegations concerning the transactions.
The ED alleges that Young Indian, a company associated with the Gandhi family, obtained control over AJL through arrangements connected with debt owed by the newspaper publisher to the Congress party. Investigators allege that the transactions enabled control over valuable property assets. Those allegations remain disputed and have not been established by a criminal conviction.
AJL’s financial disclosures record that properties in Delhi, Mumbai and Lucknow were provisionally attached in November 2023 and that the adjudicating authority confirmed the attachment in April 2024. The company subsequently appealed against that action before the PMLA appellate tribunal.
The Gandhis submitted their written opposition to the agency’s petition in September. They questioned the use of a private complaint to initiate proceedings and disputed the ED’s interpretation of the statutory safeguards. Their submissions did not settle the issue, which remains before the High Court for further judicial determination.
The agency filed its prosecution complaint in April 2025, naming the Gandhi leaders and other individuals and entities. The trial court’s refusal to take cognisance meant the complaint did not advance into trial on that basis, prompting the ED to seek intervention from the High Court.
Counsel appearing during Monday’s hearing included senior advocates representing Sonia Gandhi, Rahul Gandhi and the companies involved. The High Court heard the agency’s initial submissions but did not decide its principal challenge to the trial court’s interpretation of the law.
