The Congress party staged a protest in Jammu on Wednesday, April 16, against what it described as politically motivated action by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) in filing a chargesheet against senior leaders Sonia Gandhi and Rahul Gandhi in the National Herald case.

The protest, held at Shahidi Chowk, saw top Congress leaders and scores of party workers raising slogans against the Modi government, accusing it of pursuing a campaign of vendetta politics.

Led by J&K Congress president Tariq Hameed Karra, AICC general secretary and Congress legislative party leader G.A. Mir, and several senior leaders including CWC member Vikar Rasool Wani, working presidents Tara Chand and Raman Bhalla, and AICC secretary Shah Nawaz Chaudhary, the protest march attempted to proceed towards the main bazaars of Jammu city but was stopped by police.

In a dramatic display of defiance, several leaders climbed barricades to voice their anger at Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Home Minister Amit Shah.

Karra condemned the ED's chargesheet, calling it “a fabricated and baseless case” aimed at maligning the top leadership of the Congress party.

Mir echoed similar sentiments, alleging that the ED action was timed to influence upcoming assembly elections in states like Gujarat and Bihar, and to distract from the central government’s mounting failures, including on economic and foreign policy fronts.

Meanwhile in New Delhi, during a press conference, Congress spokesperson and senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi strongly rebutted the BJP's allegations, asserting that the case represents “a one-trick wonder” – an instance of so-called money laundering without any actual money being laundered or property being transferred.

Singhvi maintained that Associated Journals Limited (AJL), the publisher of National Herald, had long been supported by the Congress party over several decades.

“Do you know for how many decades the Congress has been extending financial support to the economically struggling AJL? The BJP wasn’t even part of the political landscape when AJL began its operations. As early as the 1950s, 60s, and 70s, contributions of Rs 5 lakh, Rs 10 lakh, or even Rs 20 lakh were made to ensure that AJL did not collapse,” Singhvi said.

“Did the BJP ever, in any avatar, raise an objection that the accumulation of loans over almost 50 years was Rs 90 crore? The AJL was doddering in debt — from whom? From a commercial company? No, from its own Congress party,” he added.

In 2010, these loans were transferred to a not-for-profit company, Young India, in a move Singhvi described as an effort to make AJL debt-free and rejuvenate its operations.

He argued that Young India, which now holds the majority of AJL’s shares, did not receive any properties, money, or dividends, and thus no economic benefit was accrued by its directors – who include Sonia and Rahul Gandhi.

“There was no transfer of property. The ownership remains with AJL. Young India is a Section 8 company, and by law, cannot distribute profits or pay dividends,” Singhvi said.

In response to BJP’s charge that political parties cannot fund private entities, Singhvi countered that AJL was founded by Congress leaders and was integral to the party’s legacy. He questioned why similar scrutiny is not applied to BJP’s affiliated organisations like Panchjanya and Organiser, which, according to him, operate with party support.

"Does the BJP not do it every day for all its sister organisations like Panchjanya and Organiser and all these? Do they function on free air?," Singhvi said in reponse to a question.

Former law minister and BJP MP Ravi Shankar Prasad had earlier accused the Congress of misusing party funds and claimed that the transfer of AJL’s assets to Young India amounted to wrongful enrichment. He alleged that the entire exercise lacked transparency and served no charitable purpose.

Congress leaders, however, insisted that no criminal intent or illegal gain occurred. Jairam Ramesh, the party’s communications chief, said AJL cannot be separated from the Congress, given its historical and ideological ties to the party.

"With due direction from experts, Young India was formed. Singhvi Saab would agree that there is no crime in it, no violation of any law. Young India was formed in line with all legal provisions," Ramesh said.

Both Singhvi and Ramesh framed the ED case as a tool of political harassment, accusing the government of using investigative agencies to silence dissent and distract from its policy failures.

“This is selective justice. It’s political thuggery in the garb of legality,” Singhvi concluded.