The Enforcement Directorate (ED) has approached the Supreme Court challenging the Delhi High Court's decision to quash the case and money-laundering proceedings against news portal NewsClick. The dispute concerns alleged irregularities in foreign funding received by the company. The ED has argued that the High Court's decision was legally flawed and that the investigation should be allowed to proceed.
On May 29, 2026, the Delhi High Court quashed the proceedings, observing that the investigation had continued for around a year and a half without producing sufficient incriminating material to justify the case. The ED has now challenged that conclusion, arguing that the court assessed the evidence prematurely, before the investigation could be completed.
ED Questions High Court's Legal Reasoning
In its petition, the ED has argued that courts should examine whether the allegations provide grounds to suspect an offence at the investigation stage, rather than determine whether the evidence is sufficient to establish guilt.
The agency has also claimed that its investigation was hampered by an earlier court order issued in June 2021, which directed that no coercive action be taken against the respondents. According to the ED, applications seeking clarification or withdrawal of that protection remained pending for around three years, restricting its ability to complete the investigation.
The agency has further alleged that the High Court did not adequately consider documents and other material placed before it during the proceedings.
Foreign Investment Under Scrutiny
The ED's petition refers to alleged discrepancies involving foreign investments received by PPK Newsclick Studio Private Limited. One of the transactions under scrutiny concerns an agreement with Worldwide Media Holdings LLC for an investment of $1.5 million, reportedly planned in three instalments.
According to the agency, only one instalment was received as foreign direct investment, raising questions about the nature and circumstances of the funds received. The ED has also referred to financial records, email communications relating to the incorporation of the foreign entity and statements recorded during the investigation.
These are allegations made by the agency and have not been established as proven wrongdoing.
Dispute Over Money-Laundering Proceedings
The ED has also challenged the High Court's conclusion that the allegations did not disclose offences such as cheating and criminal conspiracy. It has argued that the legal definition of cheating can extend beyond direct financial loss and may include conduct that causes or is likely to cause harm to a person's reputation, interests or property.
Additionally, the agency has questioned the decision to quash the Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR), arguing that it is an internal document and is not equivalent to a police First Information Report. It has maintained that setting aside an ECIR does not automatically terminate proceedings under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).
The ED has also contended that the High Court exceeded the scope of its powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by examining disputed factual issues.
The matter now moves to the Supreme Court, where the ED is seeking to overturn the High Court's decision. The Supreme Court's consideration of the petition will determine the next stage of the legal battle.
Reader Comments 0