DHFL Victims Under Legal Siege by Crony Piramal: What’s Next?

Posted on 28th June, 2025 (GMT 12:20 hrs)

ABSTRACT

India’s low ranking in the 2024 Rule of Law Index (79th out of 142) highlights systemic issues that frame the legal conflict between OBMA activists and Mr. Piramal’s firm, DSK Legal. Despite OBMA’s careful and transparent communication, legal threats like defamation suits and contempt notices appear aimed at silencing dissent and protecting corporate impunity. With Article 19 protecting free speech and Section 66A of the IT Act already struck down, such actions lack constitutional footing. The burden lies on the plaintiff to prove malice—something OBMA’s peaceful and public-facing activism clearly defies. This case signals a broader fight for democratic accountability in an increasingly corporatized legal system.

Introduction

The World Justice Project (WJP) Rule of Law Index 2024 ranks India 79th out of 142 countries, offering insights into its rule of law performance compared to other nations. This index evaluates eight key factors affecting governance, including Constraints on Government Powers, Absence of Corruption, Open Government, Fundamental Rights, Order and Security, Regulatory Enforcement, Civil Justice, and Criminal Justice. India’s position reflects an average performance globally, performing better than 63 countries but trailing behind high-income democracies such as Denmark and Norway. Within South Asia, India ranks 3rd out of 6, outperforming neighbors like Pakistan and Bangladesh but behind Bhutan and Nepal. This mixed performance indicates strengths in areas like Order and Security and Regulatory Enforcement, while challenges remain in Corruption and Civil Justice. Understanding these dynamics is crucial for both citizens and policymakers as they navigate the complexities of governance and seek to enhance the rule of law in India.

It is against this backdrop that we now explore the intensified legal battles between certain DHFL victims, who are also OBMA activists, and Mr. Piramal’s law firm, DSK Legal, concerning the DHFL Scam cases.

Let’s proceed with today’s presentation: an urgent one, to be precise!

In Continuation With

Where Everything Stands Now: Piramal’s Legal Firm vs. DHFL Victims-Turned-Activists

This brief post serves as an update on the ongoing legal proceedings in the case of DHFL victims versus Piramal’s legal firm, as previously reported over the course of several of our posts. Recently, we received the following update from the Bombay High Court’s email ID dated 10th June 2025:

We harbor no animosity towards individuals; rather, our focus is on the systemic power structures that facilitate financial abuse (which is against the International Law) and perpetuate injustices against the common people. It is basically neoliberal capitalism, which is acted through high level cronyism1, folks!

Here is the official court record as of now (27th June, 2025), which includes a misspelling of our OBMA founder-member’s name and also resurrects the defamation case previously filed by Mr. Piramal’s legal firm:

The court’s directives dated 11th June 2025 are given as follows:

ordjudDownload

As of today (27/06/2025), a suspicious parcel is en route from Mumbai to the residence of an OBMA founder member. What might it contain? A summons? A legal notice? On what grounds?

We have consistently used cautious terms like “reported,” “alleged,” “possible,” “supposed,” and “apparently” before making any statements regarding Mr. Piramal, his company, or the BJP oligarchy as a whole. We have upheld the principle of legal integrity, maintaining the stance of “innocent until proven guilty.” Our fight centers on the rights of impoverished citizens, who are suffering from a state of seemingly manufactured financial abuse attributed to the current political regime’s crony capitalist tendencies. Nevertheless, OBMA will not rest until justice is served for the lakhs of innocent Indian citizens, including NRIs, senior citizens, widows of retired Indian army personnel, physically challenged individuals, and charitable or philanthropic institutions.

If this is a lawsuit (most likely), what should be the action plan for OBMA activists? Is it not mere harassment or heckling of innocent victims of a scam who have lost their lifetime hard-earned savings?

OBMA’s communications are protected under Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution:

• Peaceful dissent, critique of public policy, and exposure of corporate-political nexus fall within the ambit of free speech.
• Limitations under Article 19(2) must pass the test of reasonableness and necessity, which does not apply to truthful, cautious, public-interest reporting using disclaimers and qualifiers.

“To suppress peaceful protest is to silence democracy. We speak not to defame, but to defend the defenseless.”

Criticism made in good faith on matters of public interest is protected under Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution and is a recognized exception to defamation under Section 499 IPC.

Additionally, Article 19(1)(b) states that there is a Right to assemble peaceably and without arms (including digital assembly). We have always denoted our civil disobedience movement as a non-violent one.

Moreover, the proceedings against the OBMA activists might have been justified if Section 66A had still been in effect, considering that the OBMA activists have engaged in a cyberspace-based form of artistic resistance. Why? Follow the account below.

Section 66A of the IT Act – Its Non-Applicability in Law

Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 was once used to criminalize sending “grossly offensive,” “menacing,” or “false” information online. However, in Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015), the Supreme Court of India unequivocally struck down Section 66A as unconstitutional, holding that:

• The section was vague, overly broad, and susceptible to misuse.
• It imposed a chilling effect on legitimate, democratic speech.
• It violated the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a).

As a result of this landmark ruling:

• Section 66A is no longer a valid law.
• Any FIR, notice, or charge under this provision is void ab initio (null from the beginning).
• Continued use of Section 66A is not only unlawful but constitutes contempt of court, as reaffirmed in subsequent cases like Peoples’ Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India (2019).

Despite this, instances persist where individuals are wrongfully charged under this repealed provision, especially when challenging state or corporate power online. This has been described as the “zombie law” phenomenon—a dead law still haunting the legal system.

For OBMA or any individual:

• Any legal notice citing Section 66A is without legal foundation.
• It should be immediately challenged on constitutional grounds.
• Authorities invoking it may be liable for violating the Supreme Court’s orders.

“What has been struck down by the Court cannot be resurrected by fear, nor used as a weapon to silence peaceful speech.”

In conclusion, Section 66A does not and cannot apply. Any attempt to revive it, directly or indirectly, is an act against both legality and liberty.

What about Section 69A?

Section 69A (Blocking of websites): Government can request takedown of OBMA platforms if it claims a threat to “public order,” often misused without judicial oversight.

This provision cannot apply in OBMA’s case because OBMA has not posted anything that undermines the sovereignty, integrity, or unity of the Indian republic. We have consistently advocated for the rights of this nation-state as well as for the global suffering humanity that endures under the grip of an unjust order, characterized by accumulation through plunder that caters to the greed of a privileged few at the expense of the other 98%.

However, there are certain IPC Sections Often Clubbed with Cyber Offenses, viz.,

Section 124A (Sedition – now inoperative as of 2022 SC freeze): Was often used to stifle dissent but has no current enforceability.

Section 153/153A (Promoting enmity): Could be wrongfully invoked for political criticism.

Section 505 (Rumors/public mischief): Sometimes misused when activists speak of financial fraud or state failure.

Furthermore, If OBMA:

• Does not hack, deface, or crash websites,
• Does not engage in phishing, impersonation, cyberstalking, or financial fraud,
• Uses publicly available data,
• Critiques using qualified and cautious language (e.g., “alleged,” “reportedly,” “apparently”),
• Operates transparently and without inciting violence or hatred,

then it is well within its constitutional rights and does not violate any cybercrime law.

OBMA is not violating any cybercrime law if:

• It remains non-violent,
• Uses fact-based and qualified speech,
• Avoids personal data misuse,
• Maintains transparency.

As every reader/viewer of our website knows, we champion democratized, non-violent, and anti-establishment dissent rather than personal vendettas. Our work is grounded in publicly available data, media reports, and secondary information that can be verified through reliable fact-checking sources. Despite facing such “legal” heckling, we remain committed to justice, transparency, and accountability, standing strong with the Indian Constitution by our side.

It is essential to recognize that the BURDEN OF PROOF rests solely with the Plaintiff representing Mr. Piramal, who must establish, through conclusive evidence, that these defendants have engaged in defamation rather than a legitimate critique of the crony oligarchy. If they fail to do so, there would be no legal basis for this case to advance.

Till now, we have not received any contempt of court summons at the respective homes of the “defendants”! How could we have violated any court order if the issue of contempt has been raised regarding the defamation case?

If there is a contempt case due to failure to initially respond to defamation, it arises solely from our investigation into multiple reported instances of Mr. Piramal allegedly engaging in similar behavior; in other words, we are tracing Mr. Piramal’s purported actions.

When he and the Committee of Creditors (CoC) allegedly overlooked the 10-day stipulated timeline of the NCLT (19th May, 2021) to reconsider the Wadhawans’ resolution plan, they obtained a rushed stay at the NCLAT (25.05.2021) within just 5 days, bypassing the lowest quasi-judicial authority and appealing directly to the higher quasi-judicial body. Was this action justified? Was it a contempt? This remains an open question, and not a conclusive stand.

Mr. Piramal, the philanthropic paramavaisnava, chose to sidestep the pertinent observations made by 63 Moons and the NCLAT on 27th January 2022, opting instead for a hurried appeal to the Supreme Court (1st March, 2022) to secure a partial stay (11th April, 2022). What prompts his repeated court appeals? Could he potentially be a habitual seeker of stay orders? A similar pattern emerged during the Digwal affair, where Mr. Piramal was rebutted by the NGT.

Moreover, it is to be noted that the Karnataka High Court on 04/04/2023 has observed in a 100 crore defamation case the following:

100 Crore Defamation Case: Application Under Order 38 Rule 5 Of CPC Cannot Be Filed In Such A Suit- Karnataka HC Rules VIEW HERE ⤡ (As reported on 4th April, 2023 ©Verdictum)

Here’s how we responded on several occasions when the defamation claim was first filed by Mr. Piramal’s legal agency:

In relation to the above, please refer to the following article:

A case for India decriminalising defamation VIEW HERE ⤡ (As reported on 7th April, 2023 ©New Indian Express)

Moreover, which law applies to our prolongated case, now: IPC or Bharatiya Nyaya Samhita (BNS), or are both relevant? We’re confused. If this case was filed during the period when the IPC was in effect in India, does it still apply with the active BNS? We seek guidance from legal experts!

We have faith in the Constitution of India and the principle of fair play within the legal system. We believe in the importance of the Indian Evidence Act (1872), rooted in Locke’s philosophy of empiricism. Without substantial evidence demonstrating that defamation has occurred, the case is likely to be deemed null and void. We advocate for the restoration of the Indian Judiciary’s guiding role in support of pro-people policies and initiatives. It is our hope and legitimizable belief that the judiciary will not lead us to despair.

Yet, it is disheartening to observe that the boundary or wall between the judiciary and the political executive is increasingly becoming blurred in recent times, largely due to the current crony political regime in India. Consequently, we find ourselves in an undeclared state of emergency, where dissent is stifled without cause or justification.

In Lieu of Hope, and Resistance

We now honour Shaheed Bhagat Singh and his comrades, who bravely refused to attend the court proceedings related to the Lahore Conspiracy Case. WHY?

Bhagat Singh’s Protest Against the Special Tribunal

• Background:
  After Bhagat Singh and his comrades were arrested for the killing of British police officer John Saunders (a case that actually stemmed from a botched attempt to assassinate another officer), the British government wanted to ensure a swift and certain conviction.
• What was the Special Tribunal?
  Instead of trying them in a regular court with standard legal procedures, the colonial government set up a Special Tribunal through an ordinance (the Punjab Special Tribunal Act, 1930). This tribunal had:
  • No jury.
  • Limited appeal rights.
  • Expedited proceedings designed to bypass normal judicial safeguards.
• Why was it unfair?
  The Special Tribunal was seen as a kangaroo court:
  • It operated outside the normal legal framework.
  • The accused had little chance for a fair defense.
  • It was heavily biased in favour of the British government’s political goal: crushing the revolutionary movement quickly.
• Bhagat Singh and comrades’ reaction:
  They refused to accept the tribunal’s authority because it was clearly designed as a political tool to silence revolutionaries, not to dispense impartial justice. Participating in such a tribunal would give it legitimacy and might also limit their ability to use the courtroom as a platform to voice their anti-colonial ideology.
• Symbolism of refusal:
  Their non-cooperation was an act of protest — a statement that the colonial state had no moral or legal right to try freedom fighters in a rigged court.

We present this instance to illustrate how legal injustices can befall those who champion truth and justice. It is crucial to clarify that the placement of this section lacks any malicious intent or ulterior motives; any resemblance to real or fictional entities, whether living or deceased, is purely coincidental and unintentional. This is not an attempt at comparison; rather, we reflect on the fiery resistance of India’s anti-imperialist revolutionaries and draw inspiration from their exemplary journeys.

Declared Emergency vs. Undeclared emergency under the NDA Government

Conclusion

In the face of legal tactics and blurred lines between political power and judiciary, OBMA stands firm on the principles of justice, accountability, transparency, and constitutional freedom. Inspired by the courage of past revolutionaries who refused to legitimize biased courts, we renew our commitment to non-violent resistance and the fight for the rights of the marginalized. True justice demands unwavering resistance against any form of manufactured suppression.

ENDNOTES

1. The Crony Capitalism Index, published by The Economist, assesses the extent to which a country’s wealth comes from industries susceptible to cronyism, where success relies on government relationships. Sectors such as mining, real estate, energy, and infrastructure are prone to monopolies and favoritism. The index measures billionaire wealth in these “rent-seeking” industries as a percentage of GDP; higher ratios indicate more crony capitalism. In 2016, India ranked 9th out of 22 countries, with crony sector wealth at 3.4% of GDP (down from 18% in 2008) compared to 8.3% for non-crony sectors, attributed to reforms like transparent auctions for coal and telecom licenses and anti-corruption efforts. By 2021, India fell to 7th, with crony sector wealth rising to 8% of GDP, linked to increasing billionaire wealth in government-dependent sectors. In 2023, India ranked 10th out of 43 countries, with crony sector wealth nearly 8% of GDP, influenced by business leaders like Gautam Adani amid fraud allegations. The index highlights that a significant portion of billionaire wealth derives from politically connected sectors, exacerbating economic inequality and market distortions, as noted by former RBI governor Raghuram Rajan. The index correlates with the World Justice Project (WJP) Rule of Law Index 2024, where India ranked 79th out of 142 countries, impacted by corruption and regulatory issues. High Crony Capitalism Index scores suggest that wealth in India often stems from political connections rather than merit, leading to inequality, stifled growth, and policy challenges demanding transparency and better regulation. Criticisms of the index include its focus on billionaire wealth and reliance on limited data. India’s 10th rank in 2023 and crony wealth at nearly 8% of GDP indicate the growing influence of politically connected businesses, reversing prior gains from 2016, as seen in India’s 79th rank in the WJP Rule of Law Index 2024, suggesting ongoing challenges for fair competition and rule of law. Enhancing transparency, reducing regulatory barriers, and promoting ethical practices could be potential steps forward. ↩︎

APPENDIX: CRONY PIRAMAL?

Crony capitalism in India refers to a system where corporate success is influenced by political connections rather than merit or market forces. Allegations against the Piramal Group highlight this dynamic, particularly due to its reported ₹85 crore donation to the BJP via Electoral Bonds—raising concerns about opacity and influence, though such donations were legal until 2024 and part of a broader trend among corporates. In a 2016 insider trading case, SEBI fined Piramal Enterprises, but the Securities Appellate Tribunal overturned the decision in 2019, citing legal grounds with no evidence of political interference. Similarly, despite a ₹8.3 crore penalty imposed by the National Green Tribunal in 2019 for environmental violations at its Digwal plant, the company continued operations and later adopted sustainability measures, reflecting weak but existent enforcement. A 2014 transaction between Union Minister Piyush Goyal and Piramal for ₹48 crore raised ethical questions, but no charges were filed. The 2021 acquisition of DHFL under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code also drew allegations of favouritism, yet Piramal’s bid outcompeted rivals in a legal process. These cases reveal mixed outcomes—penalties in some, reversals in others—indicating that while regulatory action occurs, it is often uneven, and the overlap of political funding and business dealings fuels persistent suspicions of crony capitalism.