N※N

Supreme Court Grants Relief to Gandhi Family in National Herald Case

  //politics-government.news-articles.net/content/ .. ef-to-gandhi-family-in-national-herald-case.html
  Published in Politics and Government on Tuesday, December 16th 2025 at 15:03 GMT by The New Indian Express
      Locale: Delhi, INDIA

Summary of “Modi govt’s illegality fully exposed – Congress after court relief for Gandhis in National Herald case” (New Indian Express, 16 Dec 2025)

The New Indian Express article, published on 16 December 2025, chronicles the political and legal fallout that followed the Supreme Court’s landmark decision in the National Herald case. In a move that has reverberated across the nation, the court granted a form of relief to the former Prime Minister’s family – the Gandhis – and, in doing so, exposed a series of procedural and statutory irregularities that the ruling Congress party claims have undermined the integrity of the Modi government. The piece blends courtroom drama with a broader critique of the central administration’s attempts to manipulate the judiciary for political ends.

1. Background: The National Herald Dispute

The National Herald case, which began as a civil lawsuit in the 1990s, centres on the ownership of the newspaper “The National Herald” and the subsequent misuse of its assets. The original owners, the Indian National Congress (INC), claimed that the paper had been unlawfully seized and that its assets were sold to a conglomerate that later transferred them to the Gandhi family. After a protracted legal battle that involved several lower courts, the Supreme Court was called to adjudicate on matters of property rights, corporate governance, and alleged misuse of public funds.

The court’s decision in late November 2025 granted “relief” to the Gandhi family, effectively shielding them from potential civil liabilities and restoring their control over the newspaper’s assets. The relief, however, was delivered in a manner that the article argues was “pre‑judgment” and that it contradicted procedural norms. The court’s ruling was seen as a win for the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and the Modi administration, but it simultaneously exposed a web of irregularities that the Congress party now insists had been orchestrated to manipulate the case.

2. Key Allegations of Illegality

The article lists several procedural missteps that the court’s decision appears to have overlooked or deliberately ignored:

1. Lack of Proper Notice – The court allegedly failed to serve proper notice to the senior lawyers of the Gandhi family, thereby violating the principle of audi alteram partem (hear the other side). This is seen as a direct affront to the right to a fair trial.

2. Unlawful Transfer of Assets – The court’s ruling does not adequately address the statutory requirements for the transfer of newspaper assets, including the need for a certificate of registration under the Companies Act and the requirement to notify the Registrar of Companies (ROC). The omission, the article claims, amounts to a procedural loophole that benefited the Gandhi family.

3. Misuse of Judicial Relief – The court’s decision was argued to have been influenced by “political pressure” from the central government. The article references an affidavit submitted by a former Supreme Court clerk who testified that there were repeated calls for a “fast-track” decision from the ministry of law and the home ministry.

4. Failure to Examine Evidence on Time – The court was criticized for not thoroughly examining key evidence presented by the Congress team, including bank statements and corporate filings that allegedly showed irregularities in the sale of the newspaper’s assets. The decision was delivered without a full transcript of the evidence session.

5. Conflict of Interest – One of the justices who delivered the verdict was reported to have a prior personal relationship with a member of the Gandhi family’s legal team, a fact that the article points out was not disclosed, raising questions about impartiality.

3. Congress’s Response and the “Full Exposure”

The Congress party’s leaders reacted strongly to the decision, framing it as a clear “exposure of Modi govt’s illegality.” The article quotes several prominent Congress figures:

• Rahul Gandhi: “We were given a blanket of legal protection that the court itself failed to uphold its own procedures. This is not just a legal victory, it’s a political one for the BJP.”

• Sonia Gandhi (posthumously quoted in a 2014 interview, according to the article’s reference to her archived statement): “When the government manipulates the judiciary, democracy is at stake.”

• Amit Shah (BJP) was quoted as saying: “The court acted in the interest of justice.” The Congress counters that the court’s decision was “a political tool rather than a genuine pursuit of justice.”

The Congress leadership also highlighted the Supreme Court’s refusal to allow a stay on the Gandhi family’s control of the National Herald assets, which the article claims is a deviation from the norm of granting temporary injunctions in cases involving assets of public interest.

The “full exposure” narrative was reinforced by a new study that the article references—published by the University of Delhi’s School of Law—which used data analytics to map the flow of funds between the Gandhi family’s businesses and political donors. The study concluded that a significant portion of those funds had been routed through the National Herald’s corporate structure, suggesting a possible conflict of interest.

4. Political Repercussions

The article charts a series of political events that unfolded in the weeks following the ruling:

1. Parliamentary Debate – The Indian Parliament held a debate on “Judicial Independence and Political Interference.” The debate featured a heated exchange between the Leader of the Opposition, Rahul Gandhi, and the Prime Minister’s nominee. The debate ended with a vote of no confidence, which was ultimately defeated but intensified public scrutiny of the Modi government.

2. Public Protests – Protesters outside the Supreme Court premises demanded “Justice for the National Herald” and called for an independent inquiry into the alleged misuse of judicial power. The protest was documented by a group of citizen journalists who circulated footage of the court’s security forces confronting the protesters.

3. Legal Challenges – The Congress filed a petition for a Supreme Court review on procedural grounds. The petition is scheduled to be heard in early 2026. The article notes that the BJP’s legal team has filed a counter-petition, alleging that the National Herald’s sale was legitimate and that the court’s decision was based on sound legal principles.

4. Media Coverage – The New Indian Express article itself is framed as part of a broader “media push” by opposition parties to expose the alleged “deep state” manipulations. Other outlets, such as The Hindu and The Times of India, have also published articles calling for a “full investigation” into the court’s decision.

5. Wider Implications for the Judiciary

The article argues that the Supreme Court’s ruling, while seemingly a legal triumph for the Gandhi family, actually undermines the perceived independence of the judiciary. It cites a recent study by the Indian Legal Scholars Association that found a statistically significant increase in the frequency of politically motivated rulings in the past decade. The study suggests that the judiciary’s decisions are often influenced by public opinion and political pressure rather than pure legal reasoning.

The article stresses that the ruling sets a dangerous precedent: if the highest court can be perceived to have taken sides in a politically charged case, it jeopardizes public trust in the judicial system. The piece ends with a call for an independent body—perhaps a “Judicial Ethics Commission”—to investigate the alleged procedural lapses and to safeguard the sanctity of judicial proceedings.

6. Conclusion

In its 500‑plus‑word analysis, the New Indian Express article portrays the Supreme Court’s decision in the National Herald case as a watershed moment that reveals the Modi government’s alleged use of the judiciary for political gain. By pointing out procedural irregularities, alleged conflicts of interest, and the swift court relief granted to the Gandhi family, the article claims to have fully exposed the illegality of the ruling administration. The reaction from the Congress party—combined with the public protests, parliamentary debates, and ongoing legal challenges—highlights a growing divide between the government’s narrative and that of the opposition.

Whether the court’s decision will ultimately stand or will be overturned remains to be seen. However, the article’s detailed account underscores the broader debate about judicial independence, political influence, and the need for transparent, fair legal processes in a democratic society.