Revision as of 00:41, 27 February 2016

Herald case, points court focused on (as on 8 Dec 2015); Graphic courtesy: The Times of India, December 9, 2015

Historical vignettes

The Times of India

National Herald’s 7 properties;Graphic courtesy: The Times of India Dec 20 2015

Alok Sharma

Anser Kidwai, then editor of National Herald, can't forget his November 19, 1985 meeting with Rajiv Gandhi at 7 Race Course Road. “He told Yashpal Kapoor (managing director), Aaj tumhare akhbaar mein date galat nikli hai.“ Rajiv was referring to the caption for his mother's photograph. It said 69th birth anniversary instead of 68th.

Five decades after Jawaharlal Nehru launched the newspaper, popularly called voice of India during the freedom struggle, the NehruGandhi family's passion with Herald had somewhat subsided. Gone were the days when Nehru came to Herald's Lucknow office late in the evening to file a report or write an editorial. But the family was still involved. After all, it had earned a new sobriquet: Voice of Congress.

The slide in Herald's fortunes began during the later years of its longest-serving editor M Chalapathi Rau, known for criticising Congress CMs of UP , Govind Ballabh Pant and Dr Sampurnanand, in scathing editorials, before and after Independence. “Rau was an institution, constantly at war with UP's Congress governments.Nehru never intervened,“ recalls Kidwai, 87, who started his career with Herald in 1955 at a monthly stipend of Rs 80.

Everything changed with the 1969 Congress split. The Syndicate ganging up against Indira in 1969 became the turning point. This was when Rau apparently told a bureau meeting: “We have to support her (Indira). She's under attack from all sides (Congressmen and media)“. Kidwai, then a special correspondent covering Congress, got specific instructions. “Rau told me -Now, we have to become a campaign paper,“ he says.

Even then, the Gandhis never interfered, although the MDs treated them as their bosses. Another MD, Rameshwar Thakur, who became Union minister and governor, referred to Rajiv as `netaji' at meetings. Once the Rau era got over in the late 1970s, the MDs requested editors to receive leaders close to the Gandhis when they visited Herald House. When Rau held office, he didn't stir out of his room when Indira came visiting. The GM showed her around.

Old-timers say one reason for Herald's decline was its over-emphasis on the editorial page and not reportage. “Rau never pulled up a reporter if he missed a story, but would say: But I already talked about that in my editorial,“ Kidwai recalls, adding that in the 1960s, the readership of Rau's editorials was over 10,000, a remarkable feat.

M Rama Rao, who joined Herald as bureau chief in 1998 recalls former CAG and BJP MP T N Chaturvedi hailing Herald's edit page at a Delhi event saying reading Herald was recommended to those taking civil services exams. Herald isn't remembered for exclusives, and often missed deadlines. Veterans recall how by the time Herald's special supplement on the 1992 AICC Tirupati plenary was published, the event was folding up.

When Rama Rao quit in 2006, editorial strength in Delhi had dropped to 20, the poorly paid staff worked on typewriters, and management never addressed distribution issues. From 25,000 in the 1970s, the Delhi edition's circulation dropped to 1,000 in 2006, two years before it folded up, says Rama Rao.

The National Herald case, a backgrounder: 1; Graphic courtesy: The Times of IndiaDec 20 2015

The National Herald case, a backgrounder: 2; Graphic courtesy: The Times of IndiaDec 20 2015

2001-10: Maharashtra government largesse

The Times of India, Dec 11 2015

3 govt communications expose largesse to Associated Journals

Three communications from the Maharashtra government over a period of 10 years to Associated Journals Ltd (AJL), which owned the National Herald, show how the company benefitted from government largesse and got away without paying the bulk of the Rs 3.26 crore for the land it occupies in Bandra. In 2010, when AJL sent a demand draft of Rs 31.77 lakh to the suburban collector as part payment for the Bandra plot allotted to it, the DD was returned. In the accompanying letter the collector's office said that through two memorandums issued in 2001 and 2005, the state government had decided to charge only occupancy price for the plot. An order to this effect was issued by the collector's office in 2006. It also said that the occupancy price of Rs 98.17 lakh had been paid and so the draft was being returned. Back in 2001, the collector's office in a report mentioned that the organisation owed the govern mentRs 3.76 crore as payment for occupancy and interest for delay in payment.AshokChavan was the revenue minister then. AJL was allotted a 34,000 sqft plot reserved for “backward class hostel“ abutting the Western Express Highway in Bandra (east) in 1983. The plot was allotted for a newspaper office, a Nehru memorial library and a research centre. Thirty years after the initial lease expired, only a four-storey under-construction building stands on the site. It was in 2013, towards the end of the lease, that the BMC sanctioned an 11-storey building. An NOC was obtained from the Airports Authority of India only in 2014.

February 2016

The Times of India, Feb 05 2016

Dhananjay Mahapatra

Herald rethink takes The Family to SC

Congress chief Sonia Gandhi and vice-president Rahul Gandhi moved the Supreme Court seeking quashing of the trial court order summoning them as accused in the controversial transfer of National Herald shares by Associated Journals Ltd (AJL) to the Gandhis-controlled Young Indian Ltd (YIL). It signalled a clear change of mind from the earlier decision to appear before the trial court on December 19 following dismissal of their petitions by the Delhi HC on December 7. The two top Congress members, who are on bail, decided to move the SC questioning the legality of the summoning order and terming the HC order dismissing their pleas as erroneous, fallacious and exceeding jurisdiction.

Pending their plea in the SC for quashing of the entire case, they sought stay of trial and exemption from personal appearance before the trial court, which had issued summons to them on June 26, 2014 on a criminal complaint by BJP member Subramanian Swamy alleging that AJL shares worth more than Rs 90 crore were fraudulently transferred to YIL virtually for a song.

Others who moved the SC along with the Gandhis seeking similar relief are Suman Dubey and Sam Pitroda, also summoned as accused in the same case. Sonia said she had “deep roots in society and is also the president of Congress party since 1998 and has served as chairperson of the UPA government in Lok Sabha“. She argued that she would suffer irreparable injury if the summoning order and trial against her were not stayed.

The Gandhis' petition, drawn up by advocate Devadatt Kamat and settled by senior lawyer Kapil Sibal, was critical of the HC judgment and said the judge misunderstood “financial assistance and consented takeover“ of AJL by YIL as a “financial fraud“.

The Congress brass said AJL had a “historical and emotive bond“ with Congress since its inception in 1937. “Due to financial difficulties and losses suffered by AJL over several decades, loans had been given by Congress to AJL from time to time amounting to approximately Rs 90 crore,“ they said.

To revive the financially tottering AJL, financial experts Bansi S Mehta and Yezdi H Malegam were engaged and they suggested an action plan. Accordingly , YIL was floated as a firm under Section 25 of the Companies Act in November 2010, they said.

On December 28, 2010, AICC and YIL signed a final deed of assignment “under which the interest-free loan gi ven to AJL amounting to Rs 90.21 crore was assigned to YIL... by AICC for a monetary consideration of Rs 50 lakh,“ they said, adding that AJL shareholders had endorsed the transfer on January 21, 2011.

The Gandhis said questioning this lawful transfer, Swamy filed a “false, vexa tious and politically motiva ted complaint“ despite being a third-party having the sole intention of unleashing “political vendetta to harass and cause harm“ to them.

They said the trial court issued summons to them on June 26, 2014 without appreciating that none of the ingredients of an offence had been made out. The single judge of the HC too committed the same mistake and unwarrantedly added comments to prejudice the petitioners' case, they said.

“The HC holds that the actions of the accused `smacks of criminality'. But in the same breath holds that `what species of criminal offence is made out is not required to be seen at this initial stage',“ the Gandhis said, adding that “this approach is untenable in law“.