New Delhi [India], October 12 : The Delhi High Court on Monday declined to pass an interim order restraining Associated Journals Limited (AJL) from seeking the release of its attached properties before the appellate tribunal under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) in the National Herald case.
Justice Sachin Datta was hearing a petition filed by the Enforcement Directorate (ED), challenging a trial court order that refused to take cognisance of its money laundering complaint against Congress leaders Sonia Gandhi and Rahul Gandhi, Young Indian, AJL and other accused.
During the hearing, Additional Solicitor General SV Raju, appearing for the ED, told the court that AJL was relying on the trial court’s order to seek the release of properties attached by the agency. “They are making use of this order to get the properties released,” Raju submitted.
The ED has attached several properties linked to AJL and Young Indian, including Herald House on Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg near ITO in Delhi.
Justice Datta, however, said the High Court was not passing any interim order at this stage.
Raju then suggested that the parties could seek an adjournment before the PMLA appellate tribunal until the next date of hearing in the High Court.
“I am not saying anything,” the judge said, adding that, as things stood, the parties were not accused in the proceedings before the court. The High Court has listed the matter for further hearing on November 2.
The case relates to allegations of money laundering linked to the acquisition of control over AJL, the publisher of the National Herald newspaper, through Young Indian, a company with which Sonia Gandhi and Rahul Gandhi have been associated.
The ED initiated proceedings alleging that the transactions involving AJL and Young Indian were part of a money laundering scheme. The allegations have been disputed by the accused.
In December 2025, a special court at Rouse Avenue declined to take cognisance of the ED’s complaint. The trial court held that the prosecution complaint, as presented, was not maintainable because the ED’s case was based on a private complaint filed by BJP leader Subramanian Swamy rather than a first information report (FIR) in the scheduled offence.