Mr. Paramavaiṣṇava’s Trial: A Courtroom Drama
Mr. Paramavaiṣṇava’s Trial: A Courtroom Drama
Mr. Paramavaiṣṇava’s Trial: A Courtroom Drama
Posted on 7th February, 2025 (GMT 12:42 hrs)
ABSTRACT
The trial of Mr. Paramavaiṣṇava—known as Mr. “P,” a high-profile business tycoon with alleged government ties—begins on a foggy morning in a dimly lit New Delhi courtroom. Accused of insider trading, environmental violations, contempts of court in the DHFL scam, and political cronyism as a whole, he faces intense scrutiny. At the outset, Mr. P swears on the Bhagavad Gītā, portraying himself as a philanthropic figure. The prosecution challenges this, arguing that his religious rhetoric masks unethical practices. Citing multiple legal violations, the prosecutor even references the Gītā to question Mr. P’s credibility. The courtroom drama intensifies with allegations of political favouritism, corporate maneuvering to evade accountability, and undue political influence. As pressure mounts, Mr. P lashes out, declaring India’s justice system unfit and hinting at fleeing abroad. The session ends chaotically when he collapses, forcing an adjournment, while his defense lawyer mysteriously vanishes. Beyond the legal battle, the trial serves as a broader critique of systemic corruption, judicial bias, and the misuse of religious imagery to shield corporate misconduct.
In a dimly lit courtroom in the bustling city of New Delhi, India, on a fog-laden morning, the trial of Mr. Paramavaiṣṇava—known as Mr. “P”—commences. A prominent business tycoon with alleged close “crony” connections to the Union Government, he now faces a multitude of serious accusations. As the defendant in various cases consolidated against him, Mr. P is represented by a seasoned Defence Lawyer from the elite legal firm DDD Legal, while the prosecution has been appointed following specific Public Interest Litigations (PILs). The presiding judge diligently oversees the proceedings, meticulously considering each allegation with the gravity it warrants.
First, a court clerk comes into the room and shouts: CBE Philanthropic Paramavaiṣṇava, Ha-a-a-z-i-i-i-r (Present)!
A few police officials escort Mr. Paramavaiṣṇava (Mr. P) to the courtroom, presenting him at the Court Dock. He appears noticeably distressed, his head downcast in a gesture of despair and defeat.
A court official comes into the courtroom and approaches Mr. P.
Court Official: Take the Vow of Truth by swearing on the religious book. Which one would you prefer?
Mr. P: (angrily) As if you don’t know? Isn’t that obvious? I will obviously take my oath by the Sacred Bhagavad Gītā, being a paramavaiṣṇava.
Mr. P touches the Gītā and says: “I declare by swearing on the Holy Gītā that I will tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth“.
The court official departs, leaving the judge to gaze introspectively at the defendant, the accused Mr. P.
Judge: The Hearing May Begin. Mr. Prosecutor, You may start.
Prosecutor: Thank you, My Lord. I would like to first begin with a Question-Answer session with the accused himself. Do I have the permission?
Judge: Permission granted. You may proceed.
Prosecutor: May I ask the accused his name and identity? (Approaches Mr. P)
Mr. P: (hesitantly) yes… ummm….. I am Mr. Paramavaiṣṇava. I have been known for my philanthropic work throughout decades. I….I have been conferred the CBE by Her Majesty. I have got the blessings of my guru, Shri Radhanath Swami. I have served India as the pathshower in pharma manufacturing, real estate and so many….so many things. I cannot be ever accused of anything. I have a blemish-free, unstained business career. Please, my lord, consider me.
Prosecutor: (laughs) please stop, don’t start now. Let me first ask my questions to you one by one. Don’t you plead guilty of any of these accusations? Are you sure?
Mr. P: Yes. I am absolutely guilt-free. I have done none of these things. These allegations have been brought by my corporate rivals, those who feel jealous of my generous, self-sacrificing business career. I go by the ethos of Gītā in upholding the value of selfless service to the divine work that I have been assigned. I have always met that end in my business activities by upholding the motto of “Doing Well and Doing Good” through knowledge, action and care.
Prosecutor: You often speak of the Gītā, yet you falter again and again in maintaining a robust public image. What does your Gītā say about business persons or Vaisya like you?
Mr. P: It unequivocally says that we are the expression of the absolute spirit.
Prosecutor: Not at all, instead, it says in 9.32 that Vaisyas, women and Sudras (the lower castes) are all “papa-yonayah”, i.e., of polluted origins or sinful birth.
Let me cite the exact line: “māṁ hi pārtha vyapāśhritya ye ’pi syuḥ pāpa-yonayaḥ striyo vaiśhyās tathā śhūdrās“. As a Vaisya, you have no right to cite the Gītā or give any “lecture” on the Gītā. It seems that you have made Gītā your management book as well as masking route to veil your deceitful activities. Don’t you decry such a demeaning statement, Mr. P?
Defence: (Standing Up) Objection your honour! What is this? Is this behaviour tolerable by the Honourable Court? My client follows the rule “sarva-dharmān parityajya mām ekaṁ śaraṇaṁ vraja“, i.e., “Abandon all varieties of religion and just surrender unto Me alone”. This is also from the Gītā, 18.66. He surrenders to Lord Krsna to get rid of the stamp of “papayoni”, the sinful birth.
Judge: Yes….Please, Mr. Prosecutor— try to maintain the dignity of the courtroom and ask your questions that are relevant to the ongoing cases alone.
Prosecutor: My bad, your honour. I will proceed accordingly. (Again looks at Mr. P) Mr. P, Don’t you know there are several evidential justifications against you brought by years of investigation by specialized agencies and individuals? How can you say you are innocent despite all that, based on what grounds? We have our non-mainstream media friends present here in this room who can vouch for me.
Judge: (intervening) Please, try to stick to the topic. The media is not our concern here right now. Proceed with precise questions, please.
Prosecutor: Sure, my lord. I am indeed doing that with utmost dedication. My Lord, as per the currently available and accessible investigation reports, I shall present the charges, viz., the allegations, one by one.
I bring these allegations to the hon’ble court’s notice under certain acts and legal provisions, which are:
- Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) Act – Section 15G (Prohibition of fraudulent and unfair trade practices).
- Environment Protection Act – Violations concerning environmental regulations including the pollution of land, air and water.
- Income Tax Act – Tax avoidance and misreporting of financial obligations.
- Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 – Articles 129 & 215, i.e., Powers of courts to punish for contempt).
- Prevention of Corruption Act – Sections 7 & 13, viz., the direct or indirect bribery and abuse of public office.
- Judicial Code of Conduct – Breaches of ethical and professional standards in the judiciary.
- Limitation Act, 1963 – Article 65, Schedule I
These provisions form the legal basis for holding the accused accountable before this court. Now, let me mention all the standing charges.
First, Mr. P has been accused of insider trading in 2016 by the SEBI, whereby he managed to get it revoked in the SAT. However, the SEBI’s fundamental points still remain unaddressed. My Lord, Section 15G of the SEBI Act is clear—any insider who trades, leaks, or facilitates trading using unpublished price-sensitive information is guilty. Whether acting for himself or another, whether sharing information solicited or not, the violation stands. The penalty is strict—no less than ten lakh rupees, up to twenty-five crore rupees, or three times the illegal profit, whichever is higher. This is not just financial fraud but a betrayal of market integrity.
Defence: I would like to point something out here. Since SAT intervened and stopped these baseless allegations of the SEBI at that time itself, there is no point of proceeding with it any further.
Prosecutor: That is the thing. I would like to request the Honourable Court to reopen this case as soon as possible, since we are suspecting a sort of confirmation bias on the part of the SAT to act in favour of Mr. Piramal.
Now, let me continue with all the other charges.
Second, Mr. P has been accused for his express environmental extortion in 2018-2019 as found out by the National Green Tribunal (NGT) to be going against core environmental norms in Digwal, Telangana, as per the Environment Protection Act, 1986. He wanted a blanket stay order in this case, which he never received. Instead, he was rebuked for trying to ask for the same in the NGT. Despite claiming to be a so-called paramavaiṣṇava, he was not able to protect the pañca-mahābhūtas and contaminated three of them, namely, water, earth and air.
Mr. P: (shouts) Not at all, my lord! This is unfounded. Being a paramavaiṣṇava, I stuck to my Hindu ethos through thick and thin and brought forth my P Foundation projects in Digwal by establishing water ATMs and a healthcare centre. Don’t these count? I have been accused falsely in the NGT, given that I have only been trying to achieve community development through Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR)! I heal the ailing through my pharma manufacturing, further serving my Hindu ethos as ensured by my Guru, Radhanath Swami!
Prosecutor: Well, No, Mr. P. This will not help. First creating the crisis that was never there and then providing shallow solutions to yield profits is another clever ploy of business tycoons like you. The same cannot sustain in the long run. If I have to talk of CSR, I must mention something. CSR is often used as a strategic façade to enable tax avoidance. In India, CSR spending isn’t tax-deductible under Section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act, yet companies often bypass this by routing funds through controlled NGOs or self-serving projects. Some use CSR for PR, political influence, or indirect business gains rather than real social impact. I feel you have done the same in your case: not out of altruistic concern, but for your own superrich self-serving interests to avoid taxes! However, specific provisions under Sections 80G, 35, and 35CCD of the Income Tax Act allow deductions only if the expenditures meet strict legal criteria. I humbly request the court to inquire whether any such thing has happened with the P Foundation’s projects.
Defence Lawyer: (stands up from his seat) Objection your Honour. My client is being harassed by such baseless, unfounded allegations that have never been definitely proved. All these are wasting the Honourable Court’s precious time. What is the use of saying these things when these allegations have been brought about by those agencies that are funded by the opposers of our glorious nation’s progress at the time of Vikshit Bharat Amrit Kaal?
Judge: Objection overruled. Our Prosecutor is presenting the allegations, he is not making any conclusive claim as of now. He is quite in the line. Mr. Prosecutor, you may continue.
Prosecutor: Thank you, your honour.
As I was saying: after the two accusations that I have mentioned, there are more. Third, Mr. P has earlier been accused also for being involved in the Flashnet Scam in 2018 with a prominent Union BJP Minister, Mr. Piyush Goyal. There were heated exchanges in the Parliament during that time and afterwards for this very reason.
Fourth, he is being accused for performing possible contempts of court at least twice during the DHFL resolution process in collusion with the RBI-appointed Committee of Creditors for DHFL. Whenever a verdict went against his predetermined plans to “own” a profitable, ongoing company by projecting it “bankrupt” just to legitimize the incoherent IBC (2016), he went ahead to the next ascending legal hieararchy to get the said order revoked.
Your Honor, contempt of court is not about shielding judges—it’s about ensuring justice. Articles 129 and 215 empower our courts to penalize contempt under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, which defines Criminal Contempt as Acts that scandalize the court, obstruct justice, or prejudice proceedings, while Civil Contempt means the willful disobedience of court orders.
We saw this kind of possible contempt first after the NCLT order in 19.05.2021 when the NCLT ordered the CoC to reconsider DHFL’s former promoters, the Wadhawan Brothers’ full repayment settlement proposals. Mr. P and the CoC did not care to answer the NCLT and rushed off to the NCLAT and got the previous order stayed within 4-5 days! How did he get “speedy justice” or “instant justice” when most of the cases pending in Indian courts never see the light of the day for years and decades indefinitely? Is not this suspicious?
Defence: This is entirely preposterous! It was not a contempt, it was a rightful mechanism so as not to impede an ongoing resolution process by setting up a bad precedent, as mentioned by many of the CoC members at that time.
Prosecutor: You did not let me finish, my learned friend. I have said that he did this twice, and when I say that, I am taking full responsibility for it. You talk of a “bad precedent”, eh? Whether it be good or bad, a spade must always invariably be called a spade without an excuse.
Now, as I was saying…. nearly a year after the NCLT controversy, the same thing happened in the NCLAT order of 27.01.2022, which, based on 63 Moons Technologies’ highly substantiated arguments, declared that the CoC-led resolution process and Mr. P’s resolution plan went contrary to law, had several material irregularities and became significantly void to that extent. Mr. P did not address these table-turning concerns and instead went to the Supreme Court to get the previous order stayed again within a month in April 2022— again! We can see that he habitually knocks the legal door again and again to somehow shakily safeguard his ploys with so-called “blanket stay orders”. He even gets so, like “instant coffee”!
Your Honor, these two cases of alleged contempt of court yet getting hastened justice at the next legal rank without any delay exposes a grave breach of justice—political nepotism within the judiciary, violating the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Under Sections 7 and 13, judges accepting or granting undue favours or advantages to any of the parties in a case face imprisonment and fines. The Supreme Court in Muzaffar Hussain vs. State of UP deems judicial favouritism the worst form of dishonesty. The Judicial Code of Conduct strictly prohibits such misconduct, warranting removal and prosecution. This court must uphold integrity. Justice cannot be sold or influenced. We demand full legal action to restore public trust.
Defence: Objection, Your Honour. My learned friend is simply harassing my client, who is undergoing anxiety disorders due to these allegations and is on psychiatric medications. Such arguments won’t stand, given how my client has secured approval orders from the RBI and the NCLT in 2021 itself, which enabled him to own DHFL in September 2021 quite legitimately. Moreover, for argument’s sake, even if accusations A, B, C and D are correct against my client, that does not imply or entail that accusation E, viz., the allegations related to the DHFL scam, also hold true. This is an entirely bad logic. My client is not a chronic criminal.
Judge: Objection Sustained. Mr. Prosecutor, don’t just accuse. Provide evidence, please.
Prosecutor: Yes My Lord, I have already produced all the findings before the honourable court, all of which could be found in Annexures A, B, C and D. I would humbly request the court to go through each document and then consider the well-thought out points that are being mentioned here today. Mr. P, do you have anything to say here?
Mr. P: (sweating) No…. What can I say here? I am totally innocent. You know how threatened I am? My P Group was made a victim of the BianLian’s Ransomware Attack⤡ in….what month….yes, June 2023! For what reasons? They never dared to disclose! I am absolutely innocent!
Prosecutor: Saying that again and again is not going to help you make your case, but thank you for mentioning the BianLian cyber-attack. You were the first Indian corporate tycoon to have “suffered” that attack. I feel it is quite due to your so-called “innocent” business career, perhaps…anyway. My Lord, my learned friend mentioned the NCLT’s approval order in June 2021 in favour of Mr. P’s resolution plan that led to massive haircuts for most of the small depositors of DHFL, including FD and NCD holders. We must see that the said order was given by the lowest quasi-judicial body, and is therefore not the final, not the conclusive judgment. As we can see right now, Mr. P’s claim to own the DHFL has been challenged at the higher ranks of the judicial hierarchy for allegedly being an instance of “adverse possession”, given that he supposedly bought DHFL’s 45k crore worth of assets by paying only a rupee. How was this queer arithmetic made possible? Your Honor, I direct the court’s attention to Article 65, Schedule I of the Limitation Act, 1963. This statute is crystal clear—when a party seeks possession of a property or any interest therein, relying on their title, they must initiate legal action within twelve years. Wadhawans have already done that multiple times with regard to their legitimate claim over the DHFL. Failure to do so grants the adverse possessor a legal right over the property. This principle—Adverse Possession—is not merely an argument; it is the letter of the law. The limitation is not suggestive; it is binding. Twelve years of inaction by the rightful owner does not just weaken their claim—it extinguishes it in the eyes of the law. However, it is not the case here— wherein Mr. P still allegedly remains an adverse possessor in the eyes of the law!
Defence: That is quite a lame objection. The IBC says that it is fine to go by the NCLT’s approval in the case of such insolvency or bankruptcy. What the NCLT’s first order that our prosecutor referred did was excessive jurisdiction in trying to dictate my client and the CoC to reconsider the former directors’ full repayment claims. Now, these so-called directors are known criminals, who have been tried in Loan Scam cases for being involved in terror-funding and fraudulent transactions of astronomical amounts of money. Better not to talk about them. What my client achieved was the best possible outcome for all the creditors. The bidding war that took place during the DHFL resolution was fair enough to give every bidder an equal place.
Prosecutor: If I may object here, your honour. I have two vital points to say.
Judge: Go ahead.
Prosecutor: Firstly, if NCLT order is enough under IBC— why did Mr. P care to take so many hastened stay orders? Moreover, the internally contradicting provisions of the IBC have already been questioned, leading the IBC through several amendments since its inception, which proves that it is far from being a full-proof, exhaustive, and perfected system to effectuate insolvency equitably. Moreover, the DHFL resolution process was far from being “fair” or “just” in any manner. It was discriminatory and opaque at best. It did not allow the FD holders to have an access to the resolution proposals despite constituting the majority of vote-share. Oaktree capitals, one of the bidders, alleged CoC’s predetermined bias in favour of Mr. P. The former directors were not even given a scope or presence in the CoC to rightfully portray their demands, which is going against the law again. Despite their claims to fully repay all the creditors, the CoC did not care to consider their plea and went ahead to partially consider Mr. P single-mindedly by dismissing all others.
Secondly, the terror-funding as pointed out by my learned friend is indeed a pivotal point in our analysis. The Wadhawans indeed did so. But for or to whom? the BJP, the present ruling party, to which our Mr. P is quite close. The BJP got this terror funding through the proper channels of Dawood Ibrahim, Iqbal Mirchi, Chhota Shakeel, Dheeraj Realty and the DHFL. This must be prioritized and inquired into with great detailing. Thus, I would now like to present my case in unwinding the BJP-Mr. P connections, if I have the honourable court’s kind permission.
Judge: (calmly) Sure, proceed.
Defence: What is the use of doing that, my lord? He is just going to produce half-baked fake narratives. My client is apolitical.
Judge: You cannot give the judgment on that, that is my task. Please, let the court do its task. Mr. Prosecutor, you can go on.
Prosecutor: Thank you again, your honour. In fact, the fishy crony connections of Mr. P with the BJP goes back to the past. First, he is the secondary kin/relative of BJP’s closest crony business magnate, one of the foremost “chosen ones” in Indian political economy⤡: Mr. Mukesh Ambani. Second, he, as already mentioned, was evidently involved in the Flashnet Scam with the BJP union minister Mr. Goyal. Third, Mr. P donated a whopping 85 crores to the BJP through electoral bonds, which has been declared as unconstitutional. Fourth, he has donated, or rather bribed the ruling party again by being a trustee of the dubious, opaque PM CARES fund. Was the DHFL a free return gift for all these “services” to the ruling party⤡? Note that the DHFL was far from being insolvent and continued to get cash flows till the Bombay High Court had to step in during the end of September 2019 after Mr. Anil Ambani’s company approached the former.
It is quite possible that due to such long-term quid-pro-quo⤡ relations to the current ruling party, he has always been shielded with instant justice, while the common citizens still have to frequent the courts for years with no promise or ray of hope. What of these accusations, then?
Defence: What is wrong with my learned friend that despite saying that he is not drawing conclusions, he is constantly busy in slinging mud on the stainless career and persona of my respected client. He is simply meeting some kind of past political vendetta, I feel. Who has funded you, my friend?
Prosecutor: none but “we, the people of India”, my friend. Do you have anything to say against them?
Judge: Don’t turn this into a personal tussle. Present counter-arguments, not fallacious personal attacks.
Defence: My lord, Mr. Prosecutor is far from listening to you in that regard. So far, he has made all these so-called accusations, which are nothing but imaginary constructs.
Prosecutor: But I am not done yet. There are more. Not only did the SEBI previously accuse Mr. Piramal for violating insider trading regulations, but recently in November 2024, a storm brew over Mr. P’s Capital & Housing Finance business as the SEBI turned its gaze upon explosive whistleblower allegations. At the heart of the matter lies a tangled web of transactions—discounted loans allegedly siphoned from DHFL and funneled into entities with deep ties to the Mr. P Group’s promoters. The claims paint a picture of financial maneuvering that, if proven true, inflicted grave losses upon public shareholders of Mr. P Enterprises. At the center of the storm are loans assigned at deep discounts to shadowy entities such as Encore Natural Polymers, which, in turn, reaped hefty profits from the orchestrated transfers. More ominously, the whistleblower raises unsettling questions about the origins of funds, suggesting a nexus with the disgraced financier Sudhakar Shetty, a known defaulter. These revelations arrive against the backdrop of an ongoing CBI probe into DHFL’s staggering Rs 14,000 crore financial scandal, further thickening the plot. The weight of the allegations looms heavy, and in the world of high-stakes finance, silence often speaks louder than words.
My Lord, also previously in April 2024, SEBI issued warnings against Mr. P Enterprises for not classifying its June 2023 stake sale in Shriram Finance as Unpublished Price Sensitive Information (UPSI), violating insider trading rules.
Mr. P: But our business group had long disclosed plans to monetize our Shriram holdings, making UPSI classification unnecessary in this case. We continue to insist that the warning has no financial or operational impact. If I go back to the initial days of the DHFL case, I have managed to merge my Housing-Finance Company with my Enterprises, rendering these legal attacks superfluous and redundant.
Defence: I stand by my client’s pertinent observation here.
Prosecutor: Oh ho! Thank you, Mr. P, you did provide me with a weapon yourself to penalize you. You do the merging-demerging thing with your companies again and again to avoid these legal battles, now that you have already confessed before the court. In fact, you have done this during the Digwal Disaster, whereby your Nicholas-Mr. P Ltd. suddenly became Healthcare, which then became Enterprises, and then again became Pharma Limited. This chain of events show how you always try to bypass court allegations against you by swiftly dismissing accountability. You have done the same thing with regard to the DHFL issue.
Mr. P: It is only fruitless to assume such things. It won’t help you to proceed with your illegitimate vendetta against me. Let me tell you about my Real Estate business through P Realty then! I have successfully brought up several projects along the Mumbai coastlines with many consumers choosing my Revanta, Byculla, Mahalakshmi and so on without questioning my credibility. What do you say about that?
Prosecutor: You continue to serve me with points to attack you, Mr. P! Let me ask you something here regarding Mr. P’s real estate businesses⤡. I must mention that the P Realty’s agreements, particularly for projects like P Revanta Towers, are heavily one-sided. These contracts grant the developer extensive rights over land development, severely limiting the buyers’ ability to raise objections. Furthermore, the exit clauses are skewed in favor of the developer, undermining the rights of the flat-buyers. Mr. P, don’t you further stand accused of environmental exploitation? Your real estate developments in ecologically sensitive coastal areas like Mumbai disregard the imminent threats of climate change and rising sea levels, further endangering biodiversity. It is also alleged that P Realty engages in practices to evade legal accountability. When disputes arise, the company often proposes out-of-court settlements to avoid civil litigation. These settlements are typically ineffective or detrimental to the buyers’ interests, allowing the developer to escape responsibility. Do you have any answer to these accusations regarding your real estate business that situates unearned increment at your hands at the cost of undermining the buyers/consumers as well as the natural biodiversity?
Mr. P: (grudgingly) I find these accusations frivolous, like the ones before! You are talking like Mr. Krishnaraj Rao, that funded agent.
Prosecutor: He is far from being a funded agent. He runs independent investigations as a journalist, considering the consumers’ interests to be the priority.
Defence: Even if these speculative, pointless points are granted against my client, for argument’s sake, what is the use of talking about all these? If we are to go back and question my client’s rightful claim over DHFL after all— it is clear that it is the Wadhawans, who are the actual culprits in the DHFL scam, as I mentioned before.
Prosecutor: Is my learned friend not aware of how recently in January 2025, the CBI has submitted its closure report before a Delhi Court, giving a clean chit to the Wadhawans, absolving themselves of all alleged criminal conspiracy due to lack of any kind of conclusive evidence? Mr. P, I would like to ask—- how are you going to navigate this radically metamorphosed or changed situation? This is no longer in your favour!
Mr. P: (shouting hysterically) This court, this nation is unfit for a pious person like me who buys imperfect and sells perfect all the time! I want to go to my relative Ambani’s place in England, the entire Stoke Park estate. If the superrich wilful defaulters can do that, why not me? I don’t want to be here any longer. I stand by the statement in 2011 when I said that India is unfit for any kind of investment! I wonder how my close associates in the ruling party failed to help me in this! I hope they can at least they can help me flee, as they did with Vijay Mallya, Nirav Modi, Mehul Choksi and so many others. I do not want to be another Adani!
(Commotion in the courtroom as everyone started raising eyebrows as the Indian billionaire Mr. P has blabbered out several truths in a feat of unease. Mr. P collapses in the dias, some of his medical professionals run to him with medical aid.)
Judge: Order! Order! What is happening here?
Prosecutor: (gently smiles) I rest my case for today.
Judge: Due to the present state at the courtroom and the defendant or accused’s health condition, we will reconvene our hearing on another date. Defence, you can present your arguments on that day. Okay? Defence?
(Due to the intense focus on Mr. P, no one noticed when the Defence quietly slipped away from the courtroom. Where could he have vanished to?)
The narrative remains incomplete as of now as “we, the people of India” must unite and strive to secure justice for ourselves amidst the overwhelming landscape of injustice, unaccountability, and opacity.
SEE ALSO:
https://onceinabluemoon2021.in/2024/04/06/ajay-piramal-in-the-ring-of-fire-of-controversies/
Comments
Post a Comment