French Prime Minister Elisabeth Borne has activated an inter-ministerial crisis team, saying on Friday that her country was experiencing the worst drought ever recorded.

"The current exceptional drought is depriving many communities of water and is a tragedy for our farmers, our ecosystems and biodiversity," Borne wrote in a statement.

The lack of rain is being aggravated by successive heat waves, Borne continued, which on the one hand increase evaporation, but also the demand for water, dpa news agency reported.

The situation could continue over the next two weeks and even become more worrying, she added.

In France, large parts of the mainland are now suffering from drought.

Depending on the severity, different restrictions on water apply, including on irrigation.

According to local media, some municipalities were temporarily without water supply.

Borne called on the population to use water sparingly.

On the completion of 75 years of independence, the country is celebrating it as Amrit Mahotsav. In this episode, the book "The Administrator - Jagdishwar Nigam vs British Raj 19 August 1942" was released at ITC Maurya Hotel in Delhi. The book was released by Indresh Kumar, a senior pracharak of the Sangh and a founding member of the Muslim Rashtriya Manch. On the release, the Sangh leader said that it is a matter of great pride that we are getting an opportunity to remember such revolutionary officers on the elixir of freedom. He said that the memories of Jagdishwar Nigam have been brought alive in the book Administrator. The Sangh leader said that even though the country got independence in 1947, Ballia became independent only in 1942 due to the revolutionary Jagdishwar Nigam.

Referring to the book, Indresh Kumar said that this book has been written on such a true incident that shook the heart of the British government. ICS officer Jagdishwar Nigam took a historic step after Gandhiji announced the non-cooperation movement.

Guests from all over the country and abroad, including MP from Ballia, UP, Virendra Singh attended the launch ceremony. Prominent among which were Zimbabwe, Palestine, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Mongolia, Slovenia, Macedonia, Serbia, European Union ambassadors and representatives and everyone appreciated Jagdishwar Nigam. At the same time, everyone in one voice called it a step toward peace. The foreign ambassadors and representatives also stressed world peace and India's role. Jagdishwar Nigam's entire family was present at the launch and everyone was excited to see the excitement. The family members remembered the former ICS officer very emotionally.

This book is written on the collector Jagdishwar Nigam posted in Ballia in 1942 during the British Raj, who had made the first administrative rebellion in 1942 during the British Quit India Movement. The British rule named Jagdishwar Nigam as the rebel Ballia. Jagdishwar Nigam, a 1923-batch ICS officer, was posted as a collector in Ballia and shook the flag of British rule by hoisting the tricolor on his government collectorate against British rule.

This book has been written by Raj Darbari and Janice Darbari, both granddaughters of Jagdishwar Nigam. Both have compiled in book form the interesting facts told by their mother and Jagdishwar Nigam's daughter Sheela Darbari. The book has also been appreciated by the megastar of the century Amitabh Bachchan and congratulated his family for playing a leading role in Jagdishwar Nigam's Quit India movement and making his biography accessible to the common man in book form.

Indresh Kumar lashed out at the opposition and said that Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh is like Surya who will injure himself if he tries to throw stones at him. Taking a dig at the opposition's ruckus, he said that it is an attempt to waste the proceedings of the House and the time of the House. The country is continuously moving forward on the path of development in which everyone's cooperation and contribution is necessary.

Slamming interim Congress President Sonia Gandhi and her son Rahul Gandhi over the National Herald case, former Union minister and senior Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) leader Subramanian Swamy accused the Gandhi family of being involved in money laundering.


Speaking exclusively with IANS, Swamy said that a jail term is certain for both Sonia Gandhi and Rahul Gandhi on charges of money laundering in connection with the National Herald case.

Delving on a wide range of issues, Swamy talked about Ram Setu, and expressed concerns over the country's current economic condition, among others.

Here are excerpts from the interview:

Q: The National Herald case has created quite a stir in the nation's political circles. You were the one to raise the issue first. What's the matter all about and how did it violate the law?

A: I raised the issue for the first time in 2012 at a press conference, and later went to the court in this connection in 2013. The Gandhi family had appealed against the case filed by me even in the Supreme Court, only to taste disappointment. The Patiala House Courts had observed that according to the case filed by me, irregularities indeed happened and a trial should be conducted.

Since the matter pertained to financial offense, they were released on bail... and from there, everything began. Hearings were being held and many papers and documents also came out.

I had sought some other documents as well as per the procedures, which was opposed by Congress. However, I finally got my hands on them after approaching the higher courts. Later, it came to my notice that there were some income tax-related frauds as well. A probe into the matter eventually found them guilty. Since the matter was challenged, it is now in the Supreme Court.

Q: On what basis did you say that irregularities took place?

A: Sonia and Rahul Gandhi had founded a firm named 'Young Indian Limited' for which the paid-up capital was only Rs 5 lakh. That firm had offered Congress a loan of Rs 50 lakh so that on the basis of that loan amount, the responsibilities for Associated Journal Limited could be transferred to Young Indian Limited. That's how, by offering just Rs 50 lakh, they acquired the company that published the National Herald newspaper. However, the value of the company at that time, including the building and other assets, was around Rs 5,000 crore.

Q: But even as you're claiming that they went on to take over a firm worth Rs 5,000 crore for consideration of just Rs 50 lakh, the Congress, including Rahul Gandhi, has been coming up with allegations against the BJP-led government...

A: Their allegations are totally incorrect. I had written to the government in 2014 after the BJP came to power that the case should be probed by the Enforcement Directorate.

I had written to the government back then that Rs 1 crore was taken from a fake Kolkata-based firm -- Dotex, whi was involved in hawala transactions and money laundering, and from that amount, Rs 50 lakh was utilised to take over Associated Journal Limited. I had also written to the ED that Dotex was already under scanner for its suspicious activities.

Later, I came to know that Congress had issued cheques to Dotex from Switzerland-based banks, and Dotex had converted those currencies into INR and 'paid' Congress... this is a clear instance of money laundering and it comes under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act.

Q: So you mean to say that Congress and its higher-ups are linked to hawala traders?

A: Of course... they received money from foreign banks about which I had apprised the government as well.

Q: What do you think would be the outcome of the National Herald case?

A: On the basis of all the facts available in this case, Sonia Gandhi, Rahul Gandhi and others would certainly be jailed. If the BJP government stays in power, they will surely be imprisoned. But in case Congress comes into power, nothing can be said... but even then, I would continue taking the matter to the courts.

Q: Your plea on Supreme Court's call to declare Ram Setu a national heritage would be taken up for hearing soon. Why you had to knock the court's door on the matter and what do you expect from the court now?

A: I filed two petitions in the Madras High Court in 2007. Later I went to the Supreme Court. On the basis of my plea, the Supreme Court refused to give a nod to the plans for breaking/splitting the Ram Setu for the Sethusamudram Project. I have been involved in the process to get Ram Setu declared a national heritage site for a long time.

My efforts got a major boost after the BJP came to power. Eventually, I approached the Supreme Court with an appeal to declare Ram Setu a national heritage, and that the government is given the responsibility to preserve, maintain and conserve it.

The court has already issued notice to the government on the issue, and I expect a positive outcome following the hearing scheduled to take place next week.

Q: You have also been vocal on social media about the current economic condition of the nation...

A: As far as the question of economy and the country's economic condition is concerned, I need to say that the government's economic policies are totally wrong. The Finance Minister is unable to manage things... and the officials are simply trying to defend themselves.

However, the truth is that the economy is currently under a massive crisis, and it could implode at any moment. I have been constantly writing to the Prime Minister regarding this serious issue.

The Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (“PMLA”) is considered to be the most dreaded legislation of recent times on account of the wide-ranging powers that its nodal agency Enforcement Directorate (“ED”) enjoys in respect of search and seizure, attachment, arrest etc., as well the stringent provisions relating to bail, the reverse burden of proof, admissibility of statements made before ED officials, etc. The constitutionality of such provisions of the Act was often challenged before various High Court and diverse opinion was given on different aspects of PMLA. However, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the recent judgment Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India & Ors., SLP (Crl.) No. 4634 of 2014[1] has put the controversy to rest by upholding the constitutionality of almost all its provisions as well the powers of ED. The judgment has far-reaching consequences.

The wider definition of Money Laundering

The expression ‘Money laundering’ in the ordinary sense means[2] the processing of criminal proceeds to disguise their illegal origin so that the criminal can enjoy these profits without jeopardising their source. The process typically follows three stages; Placement i.e., moving the funds from direct association with the crime; Layering i.e., disguising the trail to foil the pursuit and finally, integrating the tainted property into the formal economy.

Section 3 of the PMLA, as it originally was[3], had employed the above meaning in the definition laying emphasis on the need for projecting the proceeds of crime as untainted property to constitute the offence of money laundering. However, in 2019 the Legislature introduced[4] an Explanation in the section effectively indicating that ‘projecting’ is not a necessary requirement for money laundering. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the judgment has inter alia upheld this wider meaning ascribed to the offence. Thus, any kind of association, direct or indirect, with the proceeds of crime, even mere use or possession, is now sufficient to constitute money laundering within the meaning of PMLA. The definition of the proceeds of crime and money laundering has effectively become one and the same, which is a significant departure from the original meaning. This is the most significant aspect of this judgment.

Retrospective application of PMLA

One of the most crucial impacts of the above said interpretation is felt when it is read with the ruling of the court on the aspect of retrospective applicability of the provisions of PMLA. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that money laundering is not linked to the date of commission of predicate offence. For the uninitiated, predicate offence is the crime as a result of which proceeds are generated, which are then laundered. The PMLA has a schedule which contains the list of offences which can qualify as predicate / scheduled offences. In the beginning, only serious offences like those relating to drug and human trafficking, extortion, corruption etc. were part of the schedule. However, with time, the schedule was expanded and even regular crimes like cheating, forgery, offences relating to copyright and trademark violations etc. were included in this list. Moreover, the ED started invoking PMLA even in those cases where the alleged scheduled offences were committed either prior to the enactment of PMLA i.e., prior to 01.07.2005 or prior to the inclusion of respective predicate offence(s) in the PMLA schedule.

The action was challenged before the Courts because retrospective application of a criminal statute is impermissible under Article 20(1) of the Constitution[5]. However, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the latest judgment has ruled that the offence of money laundering is not dependent on or linked to the date on which the predicate offence has been committed. The relevant date, rather, is the date of carrying on the process or activity connected with the proceeds of crime.

Ordinarily, this would have meant the date on which the proceeds of crime were ‘laundered’. However, since money laundering has now been given a much wider meaning effectively bringing under its ambit every person having any association with proceeds of crime, it would also mean that any person charged with any scheduled offence at any point in time in the past, can be prosecuted and punished under PMLA if any connection with proceeds of crime can be shown. For example, take the case of a person who was charged with the offence of cheating in the year 1990. If the trial against him is still pending or he has been convicted of the said offence, he can immediately be booked under PMLA today on the mere allegation that the amount involved in cheating was used to purchase any property, moveable or immoveable, and the same is still in his use or possession.

The effect of this interpretation is concerning as it has given unbridled powers to the ED and the central government to apply the stringent PMLA provisions on any and every individual connected with any scheduled offence at any point in time in the past. The larger problem, however, is the potential selective targeting of people that may take place because the government now has the unbridled power to apply PMLA to anyone and everyone accused of any scheduled offence at any point in time, as per its sole discretion.

The frequency of ED raids has increased in recent times and this phenomenon may continue, especially on the political front. Nevertheless, the hope is that ED’s discretion in invoking the PMLA will be backed by judicious application of mind. This is necessary otherwise there is a high probability that the credibility of ED’s actions will come under doubt. It will be perceived largely as a political tool of the government which, in the long run, would be counter-productive in the fight against money laundering.  

(Atul Agarwal is an advocate at the Supreme Court of India. He had represented some of the Petitioners in the above said PMLA batch of petitions in the Supreme Court).