National Herald, voice of the Freedom Struggle and the legacy of Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru, the Architect of Modern India, is caught up in an unseemly row over alleged proceeds of crime and terror links. National Herald in English, along with Qaumi Awaaz in Urdu and Navjeevan in Hindi, have been drawn into legal tangle, with the draconian Prevention of Money-Laundering Act (PMLA), 2002, being invoked against Congress Parliamentary Party (CPP) Chairperson Sonia Gandhi and Leader of Opposition, considered Shadow Prime Minister, Rahul Gandhi.
Eyebrows are raised, with the draconian terror funding-related PMLA being invoked in National Herald case. In fact, the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) and PMLA mostly are used in conjunction, to combat terrorism. For instance, this is when terrorist organizations are accused of using money-laundering to finance their activities. The PMLA is designed as a tool in combating terror-financing, by making it illegal to launder money that originates from terrorist activities, or, is intended to be used for terrorist activities.
Sonia Accused No 1
Congress Parliamentary Party (CPP) Chairperson Sonia Gandhi is Accused No 1 and Leader of Opposition Rahul Gandhi is Accused No 2, in the chargesheet filed on April 9 by the Enforcement Directorate. In this case, the charges entail jail term for 7 to 10 years. It is non-bailable and ccognizable offence, where arrest warrant is not required.
The Chargesheet invokes Section 44 of PMLA, under which a Special Court can hear cases of both money-laundering (under Section 3) and the underlying criminal activity that generates the proceeds of crime.
Under Section 45, offences are non-bailable, stipulating tough conditions for Special Judge to grant bail. If bail application is moved, Public Prosecutor has to be allowed to oppose the bail. If the Public Prosecutor opposes the bail, then the court should be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty and, in the event of bail, will not try to influence or destroy evidence.
Besides, the PMLA entails Government confiscation of property earned from the illegally-gained proceeds of crime.
Now, the moot question is where are the proceeds of crime in the National Herald case?
Case against Herald
The case has origins in a plea by BJP leader Dr Subramanian Swamy before the Election Commission. Dr Swamy claimed it is illegal for a political party to lend money for commercial purposes, as per Section 29A to C of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, and demanded de-recognition of the Congress party for using public money for commercial purposes.
The Election Commission dismissed the petition. Strangely, no Appeal was filed in the Supreme Court.
ED closes, reopens case
Then, Dr Swamy moved Enforcement Directorate (ED) against the Congress. On August 1, 2014, Enforcement Directorate initiated a probe to see if there is any money-laundering in the case.
The Enforcement Directorate closed the case in early 2015, apparently with no material to back up the grave charges. It was clear that this is a false, fictitious and fabricated case, meant more to intimidate the Opposition than to try the leaders for any alleged offences. Then comes the twist in the tale.
Angered by the move, Modi Government removed ED Director Rajan Katoch and brought in a new Director, forcing him to reopen the case. On September 18, 2015, the Enforcement Directorate reopened the investigations into the alleged money-laundering in National Herald.
No credible case made out
A full 10 years after Reopening the case in 2015; a full three years after Sonia Gandhi Rahul Gandhi being questioned by the ED in 2022; a full one year after Attaching Rs 751 crore worth property of National Herald in April, 2024; ED filed chargesheet against Sonia Gandhi and Rahul Gandhi in connection with the alleged money-laundering in the National Herald case, on April 9, 2025. In case of any offence, the sequential steps follow in quick succession. On the face of it, this is more a laboured exercise, aimed at fixing political rivals.
Basic facts
At the end of the day, Modi Government could not put up a cogent case against the Congress leadership.
Now, what is the case against the Congress leadership? Associated Journals Limited (AJL) was registered by Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru in 1937 and National Herald was published on September 9, 1938. National Herald was banned during the Quit India Movement in 1942 till 1945. Feroze Gandhi was the Managing Director of National Herald from 1946 till 1950. It ran again from 1946 till 2008, when it was finally shut down.
National Herald revival
Given the fact that National Herald is the legacy of Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru and the freedom struggle, the Congress, under Sonia Gandhi, resolved to revive the newspaper.
A mechanism was worked out. Young Indian Limited, a Not-for-Profit firm under Section 8 of Companies Act, 1956, was set up in 2010. Sonia Gandhi and Rahul Gandhi own 38 per cent shares, each. With Sonia Gandhi and Rahul Gandhi together holding 76 per cent shares, the remaining 24 per cent were held by Motilal Vora and Oscar Fernandes, with 12 per cent, each.
A loan of Rs 90 crore was given by Young Indian Limited to AJL to tide over the financial crisis. On January 21, 2016, National Herald was relaunched as Digital Edition. There were absolutely no commercial considerations in the entire deal.
Since AJL was not in a position to repay the amount to Young Indian, AJL transferred 99 per cent of the shares to Young Indian Limited, in lieu of the amount of Rs 90 crore.
Core issues
In the entire process, not even Re 1 transaction has taken place. Not even one property has changed hands, as AJL continues to retain real estate in New Delhi, Lucknow, Mumbai, Bhopal and Panchkula. The property was not transferred to Young Indian, nor did Young Indian try to sell any property.
The loan given by Young Indian to AJL is meant only for reviving the National Herald newspaper, which is the shining legacy of Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru and of the Freedom Struggle. There is no commercial interest in it, at all. Not even Re 1 changed hands. No property ownership of AJL has changed hands.
Did any individual benefit in this deal? Answer is No. Was there any transfer of money? Answer is No. Was there any transfer of property to any individual? Answer is No.
When there is no transfer of money; no transfer of property; no change in the status quo, then, where is money-laundering that the Modi Government is talking about? When there is no crime committed, where is the question of the proceeds of crime?
The principal Opposition party being hounded out does no credit to the Ruling Dispensation. It smacks of vindictiveness and political vendetta. That certainly ill-behoves a modern nation and the Indian democracy.
| 
