By M.K.George
Rome, June 22, 2026: Two recent judgments from Indian courts made headlines.
One concerned NewsClick, where, after almost five years of legal proceedings, the Delhi High Court declared in June 2026 that the FIR and the ED-linked money laundering case constituted an “abuse of process.”
Finding no cognizable offence, the Court quashed the case.
The second involved the Sisters of Mother Teresa — the Missionaries of Charity.
After nearly eight years of proceedings, the trial court acquitted all the accused, stating that the prosecution had failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt and that there was insufficient evidence of trafficking or coercion, as alleged by the original petitioners.
Some details about the cases
The NewsClick case began in 2020–21 when allegations emerged that the digital news portal had received foreign funding in violation of Indian FDI rules.
A complaint led to an FIR by the Delhi Police’s Economic Offences Wing, which claimed that NewsClick had misrepresented foreign investment and routed funds improperly.
The Enforcement Directorate (ED) subsequently launched a money laundering probe under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), linking it to the FIR.
In February 2021, the ED conducted raids on NewsClick’s offices and the residences of its founders and journalists.
The investigation focused on alleged foreign funds (estimated at between ₹300 million and ₹800 million in different claims) and whether these were wrongly classified as export earnings or used in violation of FEMA rules.
Over time, the case expanded amid political controversy, with allegations of links to foreign entities and accusations of biased reporting, all of which NewsClick strongly denied.
In October 2023, the Delhi Police arrested founder-editor Prabir Purkayastha under the UAPA, triggering widespread criticism from press freedom groups.
However, the Supreme Court later ordered his release in 2024, citing procedural irregularities in the arrest.
Finally, in June 2026, the Delhi High Court quashed the FIR and the ED-linked money laundering case, describing the prosecution as an “abuse of process” and finding no cognizable offence.
The case against the Missionaries of Charity began in 2018 when a nun and two others were accused of allegedly facilitating the illegal sale of a new-born from a home for unwed mothers run by the congregation in Jharkhand.
The allegations led to arrests and a lengthy legal process, including the imprisonment of the principal accused nun for several years before she was granted bail.
After nearly eight years of proceedings, the court acquitted all the accused in 2026, stating that the prosecution had failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt and that there was insufficient reliable evidence of trafficking or coercion.
The court’s ruling effectively cleared the accused of wrongdoing and brought closure to a case that had attracted national attention and scrutiny of institutions run by the Missionaries of Charity.
Interestingly, there were no official apologies or meaningful efforts to compensate those who had endured years of legal proceedings, despite their eventual acquittal.
This raises broader questions about accountability in cases where long investigations do not ultimately result in convictions.
Questions that should be raised
Now that, in both these cases—and in scores of similar ones—the accused had to endure years of legal proceedings, public suspicion, and personal suffering, while two institutions dedicated to public service, one in journalism and the other in basic human charity, saw their work significantly disrupted, important questions remain unanswered.
Should there be clearer mechanisms to hold public authorities accountable when cases collapse after years of investigation and litigation?
Should those who are eventually found not guilty receive compensation for the loss of reputation, livelihood, and time spent defending themselves?
What safeguards can ensure that investigations do not become punitive in effect, regardless of their eventual outcome?
Equally important are the concerns expressed by many citizens that such cases may contribute to a climate of fear among journalists, civil society organisations, religious institutions, and others engaged in public life.
How should governments respond to perceptions that investigative and prosecutorial powers are being used in a selective or disproportionate manner?
What steps can be taken to strengthen public confidence in the impartiality and fairness of state institutions?
The two cases discussed above, and the judgments that brought them to a close, raise broader questions about the health of Indian democracy, the rule of law, and the protection of fundamental freedoms.
A democracy is strengthened not only when courts correct errors, but also when citizens remain vigilant and willing to ask difficult questions of those who exercise power.
The warning of Martin Niemöller remains relevant:
First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a socialist.
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.
Speak up, citizens. The preservation of democratic values depends not only on institutions, but also on the willingness of ordinary people to defend justice, fairness, and due process whenever they are at risk.
As Martin Luther King Jr. observed:
“The ultimate tragedy is not the oppression and cruelty by the bad people, but the silence over that by the good people.”
Indian Jesuit Father George Mutholil, based in Rome, serves as the Society of Jesus’ General Counsellor and Regional Assistant for South Asia. He advises on matters specific to this region while also supporting the Superior General on broader issues of governance.