Shashi Tharoor writes
Why the National Herald Verdict Matters
The recent ruling of a Delhi special court refusing to take cognisance of the Enforcement Directorate’s charges in the National Herald case is not merely a procedural setback for an investigating agency; it is a sobering reminder that in a constitutional democracy, the rule of law must prevail over the rule of suspicion.
Read more background on the case: https://indianexpress.com/explained/national-herald-case/
At the heart of the court’s decision lies a simple but profound principle: power, however formidable, must be exercised within the boundaries set by law. The Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), like any stringent statute, demands strict compliance with its prerequisites. The absence of a clearly established predicate offence, initiated through a proper FIR, rendered the ED’s prosecution legally infirm. Courts exist precisely to draw such lines—between zeal and overreach, investigation and intimidation.
Legal context: https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/national-herald-ed-case-explained-249877
For years, the National Herald matter has been paraded in public discourse as proof of monumental wrongdoing. Yet rhetoric cannot substitute for legal substance. The court rightly observed that allegations, however frequently repeated, do not metamorphose into “proceeds of crime” unless grounded in a scheduled offence recognised by law. This insistence on legal rigour is not a technical escape hatch; it is the very essence of justice.
The wider implications of this ruling extend beyond the individuals named in the case. When investigative agencies are perceived as instruments of political contestation rather than neutral enforcers of law, public faith in institutions erodes. Democracies do not crumble overnight; they fray gradually when checks and balances are weakened and due process is treated as an inconvenience rather than a safeguard.
It bears repeating that the court’s order does not pronounce innocence nor foreclose future investigation conducted lawfully. What it does is affirm that the extraordinary powers conferred upon agencies like the ED must be exercised with extraordinary responsibility. A democracy governed by headlines and vendetta is no democracy at all.
India’s constitutional architecture rests on the separation of powers and the presumption of innocence. Courts serve as sentinels, ensuring that the might of the state does not trample upon individual rights. In pushing back against a legally untenable prosecution, the judiciary has performed its role with commendable clarity.
Ultimately, the National Herald verdict is less about one case and more about a larger truth: justice must be pursued, but never at the cost of the law itself. That is the difference between governance by institutions and governance by impulse—and the distinction could not be more vital today.
🎥 Watch analysis on YouTube:
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=National+Herald+case+verdict+explained
Author: biomusic
About the Author
