Delhi High Court Refuses to Stop AJL From Seeking Release of National Herald Properties

The Delhi High Court has declined to restrain Associated Journals Limited (AJL), the publisher of the National Herald newspaper, from approaching the appellate tribunal to seek the release of properties attached by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) in the money-laundering case. Justice Sachin Datta declined to grant interim relief to the ED on October 12, 2026. The agency had sought to prevent AJL from pursuing the release of the properties while its challenge to an earlier trial court order remains pending. The High Court has scheduled the next hearing for November 2.

The ED moved the High Court after a special court at Delhi’s Rouse Avenue complex refused to take cognisance of its prosecution complaint on December 16, 2025. The agency has challenged that decision, arguing that the proceedings should be allowed to continue. During the hearing, Additional Solicitor General S.V. Raju, appearing for the ED, raised concerns that AJL could rely on the trial court’s order to seek the release of the attached assets before the High Court decided the agency’s petition.

The dispute centres on the legal validity of the ED’s money-laundering complaint and whether proceedings can continue when the alleged underlying offence originated from a private complaint rather than an FIR. The trial court had ruled against taking cognisance of the ED’s complaint, a decision the agency is now contesting.

The properties involved include assets associated with AJL and Young Indian, including Herald House in Delhi. The ED has alleged that transactions involving the two entities formed part of an unlawful arrangement concerning AJL’s assets. The allegations have been disputed by those named in the case. Congress leaders Sonia Gandhi and Rahul Gandhi are associated with Young Indian and have challenged the ED’s case. The matter remains under judicial consideration, and the allegations should not be treated as established findings of guilt.

The High Court’s refusal to grant interim relief does not amount to a final ruling on the ownership or release of the properties. The court will continue examining the ED’s challenge at the next hearing. The November 2 proceedings are expected to be significant for the future course of the case, including the legal questions surrounding the prosecution complaint and the attached assets.