A Cry for Justice: The DHFL FD and NCD Holders’ Battle Against Political and Corporate Nexus

Posted on 11.o6.2025. GMT:21.57

ABSTRACT
This letter addresses the plight of Dewan Housing Finance Corporation Limited (DHFL) Fixed Deposit (FD) and Non-Convertible Debenture (NCD) holders, whose hard-earned savings remain ensnared in a financial scandal marked by alleged corporate malfeasance and political collusion. It explores the contentious acquisition of DHFL by Ajay Piramal, a businessman purportedly favored by the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), spotlighting his predictive claims, ties to the Flashnet Scam, and substantial electoral bond contributions totaling ₹48 crores. The narrative critiques the judiciary’s role, highlighting a perceived erosion of independence through expedited rulings, political influence, and symbolic breaches like the Prime Minister’s visit to the Chief Justice’s residence for Ganesh Chaturthi, alongside judicial deference in cases like the Ram Mandir and Central Vista projects. Drawing on media reports, X posts, and critical analyses, it argues that a nexus of crony capitalism and political patronage obstructs justice for DHFL victims. The letter concludes with a fervent call to action, urging collective advocacy, legal recourse, and public awareness to challenge systemic inequities and restore the rightful dues of FD and NCD holders.

Subject: The Plight of DHFL FD and NCD Holders Amid Alleged Political Collusion

Dear DHFL Fixed Deposit (FD) and Non-Convertible Debenture (NCD) Holders,

It is with a heavy heart and a tone steeped in dismay that I address you today, situated as we are in what feels like a reign of systemic injustice. The Dewan Housing Finance Corporation Limited (DHFL) scam, which has ensnared your hard-earned savings, is not merely a financial debacle but a saga intertwined with political machinations that demand scrutiny. Some among you have urged that this is not a political issue, insisting we refrain from muddying the waters with such considerations. Yet, as Aristotle’s zoon politikon—a political animal—OBMA cannot ignore the stark reality that our lives, our livelihoods, and indeed our losses are shaped by political decisions. As Bertolt Brecht so poignantly warned:

“The worst illiterate is the political illiterate, he doesn’t hear, doesn’t speak, nor participates in the political events. He doesn’t know the cost of life, the price of the bean, of the fish, of the flour, of the rent, of the shoes and of the medicine, all depends on political decisions. The political illiterate is so stupid that he is proud and swells his chest saying that he hates politics. The imbecile doesn’t know that, from his political ignorance is born the prostitute, the abandoned child, and the worst thieves of all, the bad politician, corrupted and flunky of the national and multinational companies.” ― Bertolt Brecht

Your plight, dear victims, is not an isolated financial misstep but a consequence of a nexus that appears to favor cronyism over justice. Allow me to elucidate the forces at play that obstruct the return of your rightful dues, adorned with the gravity and clarity this matter deserves.

A. Ajay Piramal’s Alleged Cronyism and the BJP Connection

The acquisition of DHFL by Ajay Piramal, a prominent industrialist, a philanthropist⤡, an ardent Paramavaiṣṇava and secondary kin to Mukesh Ambani—a business tycoon closely aligned with the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP)—raises questions of favouritism and political collusion. Piramal’s prescience in predicting a “major shock” in the NBFC sector on January 28, 2019, as reported, is chilling. How could he foresee such a catastrophic event unless it was orchestrated or anticipated within elite circles? This prophecy coincided with the unraveling of DHFL, suggesting a premeditated design.

The Flashnet Scam of 2018 further taints this narrative. Allegations, as reported by The Wire, suggest Piramal purchased a company owned by BJP Union Minister Piyush Goyal at an inflated value—1,000 times its face value—in what appears to be a quid pro quo arrangement. The absence of defamation lawsuits against these reports lends credence to their veracity. Additionally, a Cobrapost investigation has alleged ties between DHFL, RKW Developers, the BJP, and even the Dawood Ibrahim-Iqbal Mirchi gang, pointing to a web of systemic corruption. These connections paint a picture of a “gift economy,” where political loyalty is rewarded with lucrative acquisitions, leaving small investors like you bereft.

The following article has revealed the politics of gift:

The article discusses potential political collusion between the BJP and Ajay Piramal, particularly regarding the Flashnet Scam (2018) and the DHFL Scam (2019). It highlights the possibility of “quid pro quo” between the ruling party and Piramal, suggestin

Piramal’s contributions to electoral bonds further underscore his alignment with the BJP. Through his conglomerate, the Piramal Group, he donated a staggering 48 crores across various entities:

• Piramal Capital and Housing Finance Ltd (PCHFL): 10 crores (April 12, 2019)
• Piramal Enterprises: 35 crores (10 crores on April 12, 2019, and 25 crores on April 7, 2022)
• Piramal Pharma: 3 crores

These donations, facilitated through the opaque mechanism of electoral bonds, raise critical questions about the intersection of corporate wealth and political influence. Can such substantial contributions be mere philanthropy, or do they anticipate reciprocal favors? The proximity of Piramal’s financial maneuvers to BJP’s political machinery, coupled with his familial ties to Mukesh Ambani, suggests a system where crony capitalism thrives, sidelining the interests of ordinary investors.

B. The Judiciary’s Role: A Bastion Besieged?

B.0. Judiciary Under Siege

The Indian judiciary, envisioned as the cornerstone of justice in a democratic republic, stands as the guardian of constitutional values, ensuring equity and impartiality. Yet, in contemporary India, this sacred institution appears ensnared in a web of political influence, ideological pressures, and systemic inefficiencies. The saga of the Dewan Housing Finance Corporation Limited (DHFL) scam exemplifies how the judiciary, once a beacon of hope, has seemingly succumbed to forces that favor the powerful over the powerless. Allegations of political collusion, favoritism, and a creeping saffronization threaten to erode its independence, leaving victims like you—FD and NCD holders—stranded in a labyrinth of delayed justice. This section unveils the troubling trajectory of the DHFL case within a broader context of judicial compromise, drawing on critical analyses to illuminate the depth of this crisis.

B.1. Overview: The Indian Judiciary Under the BJP Regime

The Indian judiciary, tasked with upholding the secular and egalitarian ethos of the Constitution, faces an unprecedented legitimation crisis under the current political dispensation. Several incisive critiques underscore this troubling reality:

a) Saffronization of the Judiciary: As articulated in an open letter to the Chief Justice of India, there is growing alarm over the infiltration of Hindutva ideology into judicial processes. Decisions perceived as tilting toward militant Hindu nationalist interests have sparked fears of a judiciary drifting from its secular moorings. The letter implores the Chief Justice to safeguard transparency and impartiality, warning that the erosion of judicial independence undermines the very fabric of India’s democratic ethos. (Source: onceinabluemoon2021.in, January 13, 2024)

b) A Legitimation Crisis: The judiciary’s credibility is further battered by allegations of political influence and favoritism. Notable examples include post-retirement sinecures for judges aligned with the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), casting shadows over their impartiality during tenure. The protracted delay in resolving the DHFL scam, among other high-profile cases, exemplifies a system struggling to deliver justice. This critique, reflecting on Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud’s tenure, questions whether the judiciary has honoured its constitutional mandate or succumbed to external pressures. (Source: onceinabluemoon2021.in, February 3, 2024)

c) Favouritism and Inefficiency: The judiciary’s structural flaws exacerbate its challenges. Former Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi’s description of the system as “ramshackled” resonates, with inefficiencies, nepotism, and favoritism toward the elite marginalizing the underprivileged. Judicial appointments, such as those of Justice U.U. Lalit, who represented politically connected clients before ascending to the bench, raise questions of propriety. For ordinary citizens, including DHFL victims, access to justice remains an elusive dream, with the system appearing distant and unattainable. (Source: onceinabluemoon2021.in, September 2, 2022)

d) Delays and Systemic Corruption: The judiciary’s backlog of cases, vacant judicial positions, and a notorious “culture of adjournments” compound the plight of litigants. Allegations of political interference and judicial corruption in high-profile cases, including financial frauds like DHFL, underscore a system manipulated to favor influential figures. The call for accountability, infrastructural reform, and transparent judicial appointments grows louder, as public trust in the legal system wanes. (Source: onceinabluemoon2021.in, October 28, 2024)

B. 2. The Blurred Divide: Erosion of the Wall Between Executive and Judiciary in the Indian Republic

In the grand edifice of India’s democratic republic, the separation of powers stands as a sacred bulwark, designed to ensure that the executive, legislature, and judiciary operate as distinct sentinels of governance. The judiciary, in particular, is enshrined as the guardian of constitutional values, an impartial arbiter unswayed by the whims of political power. Yet, in recent years, this thick wall of separation between the executive and the judiciary appears to have been breached, its once-sturdy boundaries blurred by troubling instances of proximity, compromise, and perceived collusion. This erosion threatens the very bedrock of democracy, undermining public trust and the sanctity of justice. Let us delve into this disquieting trend, illuminated by specific episodes that cast shadows over the Indian republic’s commitment to constitutional integrity.

(i) The Ganesh Chaturthi Visitation: A Symbolic Breach
A striking example of this blurred divide unfolded when Prime Minister Narendra Modi visited the residence of then-Chief Justice of India (CJI) D.Y. Chandrachud on September 11, 2024, to participate in Ganesh Chaturthi celebrations. This ostensibly private act of devotion, a Hindu festival venerating Lord Ganesha, was fraught with constitutional impropriety:

(ii) Ram Mandir Verdict and Divine Inspiration:

The blurring of boundaries extends to judicial pronouncements themselves. In the landmark Ayodhya Ram Mandir case, the Supreme Court’s verdict on November 9, 2019, authored anonymously but widely attributed to then-Justice D.Y. Chandrachud (later CJI), paved the way for the temple’s construction. Reports and X posts later speculated that the judgment drew on “divine inspiration,” a claim that, if true, melds spiritual influence with judicial reasoning. This unsigned verdict, favoring a religiously charged outcome, raised eyebrows about the judiciary’s susceptibility to cultural or executive-aligned sentiments, especially given the executive’s vocal support for the temple project. (Source: X posts, media speculation, 2019–2024)

(iii) Ram Mandir Inauguration by the Hon. PM:

On January 22, 2024, Prime Minister Modi presided over the grand inauguration of the Ram Mandir in Ayodhya, a direct outcome of the 2019 Supreme Court verdict. This high-profile ceremony, steeped in religious symbolism and broadcast nationwide, saw the executive championing a judicially enabled project, blurring the lines between state action and judicial legacy. The PM’s central role in consecrating the temple, hailed as a triumph of the BJP’s agenda, reinforced perceptions of a judiciary and executive marching in lockstep, particularly on issues of cultural and political significance. (Source: Media coverage, January 22, 2024; X sentiment)

(iv) Central Vista Opening Ceremony by the Hon. PM: On September 8, 2022, Prime Minister Modi inaugurated the Central Vista redevelopment project, a monumental endeavor reshaping India’s parliamentary and administrative hub. This Rs. 20,000-crore initiative, prioritized by the executive, proceeded despite legal challenges in the Supreme Court, which upheld the project in a 2:1 verdict on January 5, 2021. The PM’s high-profile unveiling, funded by public money and celebrated as a legacy of his tenure, underscores an executive-driven vision that the judiciary appeared to endorse, further blurring the divide. Critics on X and in media questioned whether judicial deference to this ambitious project reflected an alignment with executive priorities over public interest. (Source: Supreme Court verdict, January 5, 2021; media reports, September 8, 2022)
This subtle encroachment blurs the divide, as the executive’s influence seeps into the sanctum of judicial appointments and decisions, compromising the independence envisioned by the Constitution. (Source: Media reports, February 2020; X sentiment analysis)

All these instances entail following reflections:

• (a) Defeating Article 51A(h): The Constitution, under Article 51A(h), enjoins citizens to develop a scientific temper, humanism, and a spirit of inquiry and reform. Yet, this high-profile participation in a “heathen” ritual—steeped in religious tradition rather than rational inquiry—seemingly contradicts this fundamental duty. When the nation’s executive head and its chief judicial officer publicly partake in such an event, it risks signaling a retreat from secular and scientific values, further muddying the waters of their distinct roles.
• (b) Misuse of Taxpayers’ Money: The Prime Minister’s travel and security arrangements, funded by the public exchequer, facilitated this visit. Such expenditure, typically reserved for official duties, raises questions about the propriety of using taxpayers’ resources for a personal or religious engagement with the head of the judiciary. This blurring of public duty and private camaraderie erodes the perception of judicial independence, as the executive’s resources appear to bridge a gap meant to remain inviolate.
• (c) Media Amplification: Far from a discreet affair, the Ganesh Chaturthi occasion was broadcast across media platforms, with images and reports of the Prime Minister and CJI together during the puja splashed across television and digital media. This public spectacle amplified perceptions of an unseemly alliance, eroding the judiciary’s image as a detached bastion of justice. The optics of this event, widely discussed on X and in news outlets, fueled concerns that the executive and judiciary were no longer separated by the requisite constitutional chasm. (Source: X posts and media reports, September 2024)

B.3. Post-Retirement Sinecures: A Pattern of Influence

The blurring of this divide extends beyond symbolic gestures to tangible rewards. A recurring concern is the appointment of retired judges to lucrative or prestigious posts by the executive, suggesting a quid pro quo that compromises judicial impartiality during tenure. For instance, former CJI Ranjan Gogoi, after delivering judgments perceived as favorable to the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP)—such as the Ayodhya Ram Mandir verdict in 2019—was nominated to the Rajya Sabha by the government in March 2020, mere months after his retirement. This swift transition from the bench to a political appointment, facilitated by the executive, raises questions about whether judicial decisions are influenced by the promise of future favors. The Ram Mandir case, celebrated by the BJP, further ties this reward to a judicial outcome aligned with the executive’s agenda, deepening the perception of a blurred divide. Such instances cast the judiciary as a potential appendage of executive will rather than an independent pillar. (Source: Media reports, March 2020; X discussions)

1. Judicial Delays and Selective Expediency in High-Profile Cases
   The handling of cases with political implications further illustrates this troubling convergence. The Dewan Housing Finance Corporation Limited (DHFL) scam, involving alleged financial irregularities of ₹34,615 crores, saw unusual judicial haste when it favored the executive’s allies. The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) stayed an NCLT order within days (May 25, 2021) after an urgent petition by Union Bank of India and Ajay Piramal, a businessman allegedly close to the ruling regime. This swift action contrasts starkly with the languishing backlog of millions of cases affecting ordinary citizens, including those of DHFL’s FD and NCD holders. The perception of selective expediency—where cases or outcomes linked to the executive’s interests are prioritized—suggests an unspoken alignment, blurring the judiciary’s role as an impartial arbiter. (Source: NCLAT order, May 25, 2021; The Times of India, January 27, 2022)
2. Collegium and Executive Tussle: A Subtle Encroachment
   The appointment of judges, a process guarded by the judiciary’s collegium system, has also witnessed executive overreach. The government’s delays in approving collegium recommendations—or its pushback, as seen in the case of Justice S. Muralidhar, a judge known for rulings critical of the executive, whose transfer from the Delhi High Court in 2020 was widely criticized as retaliatory—hint at an attempt to shape the judiciary’s composition.

B.4. The Particular Case of DHFL: A Judicial Travesty

The DHFL resolution process, marred by allegations of undue haste and favoritism, serves as a microcosm of the judiciary’s broader malaise. The timeline of judicial decisions reveals a troubling pattern:

NCLT’s Initial Order (May 19, 2021): The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) ordered the Committee of Creditors (CoC) to consider a settlement offer from DHFL’s erstwhile promoter, Kapil Wadhawan, promising 100% repayment to creditors. This directive, grounded in Section 60(5) and other provisions of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), aimed to maximize value for stakeholders. Cf. NCLT order on the DHFL-case ⤡ [IA 2431 of 2020 in CP (IB) 4258/MB/C-II/2019 Under Section 60 (5), 227 (2), 239 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016] points 16-19 and 84-89.

NCLAT’s Swift Reversal (May 25, 2021): In an astonishingly rapid response, the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) stayed the NCLT’s order following an urgent petition by Union Bank of India and Piramal. The CoC and Piramal bypassed addressing the NCLT’s concerns, securing a favorable ruling in mere days—a privilege rarely afforded to ordinary litigants in India’s overburdened courts. How did Piramal secure such expedited judicial attention?

Piramal is more equal than the other 98%!VIEW HERE ⤡

NCLT’s Forced Approval (June 7, 2021): Under apparent pressure, the NCLT approved Piramal’s resolution plan, valued at ₹34,250 crores, despite objections. This plan assigned a nominal value of ₹1 to ₹45,000 crores in recoverable assets, deemed “avoidance transactions” under the IBC, effectively shortchanging creditors.

NCLAT’s Rebuke (January 27, 2022): Following a challenge by 63 Moons Technologies, a debenture holder with over ₹200 crores in exposure, the NCLAT declared the resolution plan’s valuation illegal, citing Section 66 of the IBC, which mandates that proceeds from fraudulent transactions benefit all creditors. The tribunal criticized the CoC’s conduct and directed a reconsideration of the plan. NCLAT asks CoC to consider 63 moons’ plea in DHFL Resolution Plan VIEW HERE ⤡ (As reported on 27th January, 2022 ©The Times of India) NCLAT-ORDER-27-01-2022-1

Supreme Court’s Stay and “Final” (?) Ruling (April 11, 2022, and April 1, 2025): Piramal and the CoC promptly appealed to the Supreme Court, which stayed the NCLAT’s order in April 2022. In a final blow, on April 1, 2025, a bench led by Justice Bela Trivedi upheld Piramal’s resolution plan, overturning the NCLAT’s verdict. The court ruled that ₹45,000 crores in recoveries from fraudulent transactions would flow to Piramal, not creditors, leaving FD and NCD holders with significant losses. ⤡ ⤡

The following article provides an overview of Justice Bela M. Trivedi, who had handled DHFL case in India’s Supreme Court. It highlights her judicial background, significant rulings, and perceived alignment with the ruling government, sparking concerns over her impartiality. The article details past controversial case assignments and suggests a pattern of favoring government interests, raising doubts about her stance on justice for DHFL victims amid allegations of corporate and political influence.

The following article expresses gratitude to the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) and the Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association (SCAORA) for their decision to forgo the farewell ceremony for Justice Bela M. Trivedi on May 16, 2025, viewing it as a principled stance for judicial integrity. It critiques Justice Trivedi for her rulings perceived to favor the ruling BJP and the executive branch, with particular emphasis on her involvement in the DHFL case. While Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai conveyed disappointment over the lack of a formal farewell, the article lauds the boycott as a courageous protest against the increasing politicization (or rather, Saffronization) of the judiciary over the past few years and a vital defense of constitutional values aimed at maintaining the separation between the political executive and the “impartial” judiciary.

The following article critiques the Supreme Court’s April 1, 2025, verdict, which overturned the NCLAT’s 2022 ruling, prolonging the financial agony of DHFL victims. It argues that this decision serves corporate interests, particularly Piramal’s alleged adverse possession of DHFL, while entangling victims in endless litigation. The piece calls for global advocacy, urging victims to take their fight to the United Nations and engage in digital and/or street-based civil resistance against what it describes as a compromised judiciary serving political and corporate tycoons.

This judicial odyssey, marked by expedited rulings for the powerful and disregard for creditors’ rights, mirrors the broader critiques of favoritism and political influence. The DHFL case, entangled in a nexus of corporate power and political patronage, underscores a judiciary that, far from being a bastion of justice, appears besieged by external forces.

---

C. The Political Nexus and Its Implications

The DHFL scam cannot be divorced from its political context. Posts on X from 2022 highlight public sentiment linking DHFL’s collapse to BJP’s financial dealings. For instance, allegations surfaced that the BJP received ₹27.5 crores from DHFL and its associates, including:

• RKW Developers Ltd: ₹10 crores
• Wadhawan Global Capital Ltd: ₹10 crores
• Darshan Developers: ₹7.5 crores

These donations, facilitated through electoral bonds, fuel suspicions of a symbiotic relationship between the BJP and corporate entities implicated in the scam. Critics argue that the BJP’s acceptance of funds from a company accused of a ₹34,615-crore fraud underscores a tolerance for corruption when it serves political ends.

Moreover, the acquisition of DHFL by Piramal, allegedly at a fraction of its value, is perceived as a “gift” facilitated by political patronage. The loss to public sector banks—estimated at ₹65,000 crores—contrasts sharply with Piramal’s gain, reinforcing perceptions of favoritism.

D. The Path Forward: A Call to Action

Dear victims, the DHFL scam is not merely a financial tragedy but a symptom of a deeper malaise—crony capitalism buttressed by political power. The judiciary’s acquiescence, the BJP’s alleged complicity, and Piramal’s strategic maneuvers have created a formidable barrier to justice. Yet, despair must not prevail. Brecht’s words remind us that political ignorance breeds exploitation. To reclaim your dues, consider these steps:

1. Organize and Amplify: Form collectives to amplify your voices. Engage with web platforms (To Occupy the Cronies, Occupy the Walls of Internet) to highlight your plight and pressure authorities.
2. Legal Recourse: Support ongoing challenges, such as those by 63 Moons, and explore class-action lawsuits to contest the resolution plan’s inequities.
3. Political Advocacy: Demand transparency in electoral funding and accountability for corporate-political nexus. Support parties and leaders committed to judicial independence and economic justice.
4. Public Awareness: Educate others about the scam’s political dimensions, countering narratives that absolve systemic failures.

Until the political landscape shifts—potentially through a change in regime—the odds remain stacked against you. The BJP’s entrenched influence, coupled with Piramal’s resources, creates a formidable adversary. Yet, history teaches us that collective action and persistent truth-telling can topple even the mightiest edifices of power.

In solidarity,

Once in a Blue Moon Academia