The Delhi High Court, presided over by Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma, has scheduled the next hearing for March 9, 2026. The court noted that the matter requires a “substantive hearing” and granted additional time to the respondents—including Sonia Gandhi and Rahul Gandhi—to file their official replies to the ED’s petition. While Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the ED, objected to the delay by stating that the respondents had been served notices two months prior, the court prioritized ensuring all legal responses were on record before proceeding.
The legal battle stems from a December 16, 2025, order by a Special Judge at the Rouse Avenue Court. The trial court had dismissed the ED’s prosecution complaint, ruling that it was “impermissible in law” to take cognisance of a money laundering case under the PMLA (Prevention of Money Laundering Act) if it is based solely on a private complaint rather than an FIR registered by a law enforcement agency. The trial court highlighted that despite the 2014 summoning order in the private complaint filed by BJP leader Subramanian Swamy, the CBI had not registered a formal FIR.
The ED’s revision petition argues that the trial court’s decision is “patently perverse” and sets a dangerous precedent. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta contended that a court-approved private complaint stands on a “higher footing” than a police FIR. The agency claims that senior Congress leaders used a “sham” company, Young Indian, to fraudulently acquire assets worth over ₹2,000 crore belonging to Associated Journals Ltd (AJL) for a mere ₹50 lakh. The outcome of this High Court challenge is expected to have far-reaching implications for how PMLA cases are initiated in India.
