Special judge Vishal Gogne reviewed the chargesheet, filed on April 9, concerning the point of cognisance and scheduled further proceedings for April 25.
The chargesheet also includes Congress leader Sam Pitroda and Suman Dubey as accused individuals.
“The current prosecution complaint will be taken up for consideration regarding cognisance before this court on April 25, 2025, when the special counsel for the ED and the Investigating Officer will also ensure the production of the case diaries for the court’s review,” the judge stated.
Read more: PMLA Authority upholds attachment of Congress-promoted National Herald’s assets
The chargesheet was lodged under Sections 3 (money laundering) and 4 (punishment for money laundering) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act by the ED’s special public prosecutor N K Matta.
“Let the complaint be checked and filed. The Ahlmad (court staff) shall make sure that the entire file/documentation is properly paginated. The ED is instructed to submit a digital copy of the complaint and documents in a readable/OCR format by the next date,” the judge remarked.
The special judge handling cases involving lawmakers also acknowledged the ED’s submission, indicating that they would file an application before the district judge to transfer the case related to the predicate offence being investigated by the CBI for alleged cheating, criminal conspiracy, and other offences, which led to the ED’s current investigation, from another court to Judge Gogne’s court.
The predicate offence must be tried in the same court that takes cognisance of the offence under Section 3 of the PMLA, the judge reiterated, since Sonia Gandhi and Rahul Gandhi are members of the Rajya Sabha and Lok Sabha, respectively.
Read more: Robert Vadra summoned in Haryana land deal case, says ‘not intimidated by the govt’
“Essentially, the two offences, namely the predicate offence and the PMLA offence, need to be tried by the same court,” the judge explained.
Given that the allegations in the current complaint stem from the predicate offence, the court indicated that the records of the predicate offence should be obtained for examination.
“However, the authority to assign or transfer a matter does not reside with this court and is the prerogative of the Principal District & Sessions Judge, Rouse Avenue Courts Complex, New Delhi,” the court noted.
The ED’s investigation commenced in 2021 after a metropolitan magistrate in Patiala House courts, Delhi, acknowledged a private complaint lodged by BJP leader Subramanian Swamy on June 26, 2014.
The complaint, as stated by the ED, outlined a ”criminal conspiracy” involving several prominent political figures, including the first family of the Congress party led by Sonia, her MP son Rahul, the late Congress leaders Motilal Vora and Oscar Fernandes, along with Dubey, Pitroda, and a private entity, Young Indian, for their alleged roles in money laundering concerning the fraudulent acquisition of properties valued over ₹2,000 crore belonging to the Associated Journals Limited (AJL).
“The legal proceedings against the accused have encountered challenges but have been upheld by both the Delhi High Court and the Supreme Court of India, permitting the investigation to proceed,” the ED remarked.
AJL serves as the publisher of the National Herald news platform (newspaper and web portal), owned by Young Indian Private Limited.
Congress leaders Sonia and Rahul are majority stakeholders in Young Indian, each holding 38 per cent of the shares. They were interrogated for several hours by the ED in this case a few years back. The ED asserted that its investigation has “conclusively” determined that Young Indian, a private company “beneficially owned” by Sonia Gandhi and Rahul Gandhi, “acquired” AJL properties worth ₹2,000 crore for merely ₹50 lakh, significantly undervaluing the assets.
“Young Indian and AJL properties were utilized for generating further proceeds of crime in the form of fictitious donations totaling ₹18 crore, fictitious advance rent approximating ₹38 crore, and fictitious advertisements worth ₹29 crore,” the ED charged.
