Justice via Intimidation? A Financially Abused Citizen vs. the Corporate-State Nexus

Response/Statement from a DHFL Victim Harassed by Mr. Piramal’s Legal Machinery, Intended as an Open Communication (as expected in democracy) to the Hon’ble Bombay High Court Regarding Case Number S/42/2025 (and connected matters).

Posted on 30th June, 2025 (GMT 23:01 hrs)

ABSTRACT

The author of this open communication to the Hon’ble Bombay High is a victim of the DHFL financial scandal. He reports receiving a Bombay High Court suit (No. 42 of March 17, 2025) unusually via the Mumbai Sheriff, which contained identity errors, redundant or blank pages, and a mere five‑day response window, compared to the 90 days apparently allotted to corporate plaintiff Mr. Ajay Piramal. He argues that this situation appears to constitute legal intimidation by a powerful corporate‑state nexus that has left him impoverished and unable to secure counsel within such a short temporal window. He highlights his right to self‑representation and demands clarity on the apparently vague allegations, framing the situation as Kafkaesque. Additionally, he draws attention to alleged corporate malfeasance linked to Ajay Piramal—insider‑trading fines, environmental violations, political donations, and controversial acquisitions such as DHFL, along with real‑estate deals—and contends that the political executives enforce the law selectively, favoring elites and infringing upon constitutional rights and international human rights norms. This open communication is intended to defend the fundamental freedom of speech and expression, which constitutes an exception to defamation as guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution.

In Reference With

1. A Surprising Parcel From The Sheriff Of Mumbai

A Parcel Received: A parcel from the Sheriff of Mumbai was received by the spouse of the undersigned on 28/06/2025, 4:30 PM IST

Content of the Parcel: The parcel contains (a) the duplicate copy of Suit No. 42 Of 17th March, 2025 filed in the Hon’ble Bombay High Court; (b) two volumes of photocopied documentary evidences.

Note: The document bore an incorrect spelling and a patriarchal insertion to my name. This raises a fundamental question: is the case really meant for me, or am I being wrongfully targeted?

Furthermore, the parcel originated from the office of the Mayor of Mumbai. Why was this municipal channel used for serving legal documents?

2. Identity and Disbelief

I, an ordinary Indian citizen—and more broadly, an earthian—residing on this shared planet, fail to comprehend the legal basis or motive behind the purported case involving “me” and other financially abused victims of the DHFL scam. The mention of social media platforms like Facebook, X (formerly Twitter), and LinkedIn only deepens the confusion.

3. Relief and Clarification

I express cautious relief at reports that the defamation case (Sc/1227/2023) has seemingly been quashed (09/05/2023, 10/05/2023, 14/12/2023) by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court. If that is so, what then is the nature and objective of these documents served to me?

4. Time and Discrimination

The document of a suit filed in the Hon’ble Bombay High Court, dated 17th March, 2025, was received on 28 June 2025 at approximately 16:30 IST, giving me just five days to respond. Meanwhile, Mr. Piramal and his legal team DSK Legal are apparently allowed 90 days.
This is not merely asymmetrical—it appears to be a calculated form of legal intimidation by design.
I’ve had neither time nor financial means to consult a legal advisor. Already reduced to poverty for the reason of DHFL Scam, I, like a prodigal being, cannot afford to squander even a widow’s mite.

Therefore, I am formulating this legally applicable defense by structuring it in the manner of “appearing pro se,” which means representing myself in this legal case without the assistance of a lawyer.

5. Material Discrepancies in the Legal Document

Upon closely reviewing the content, I identified multiple deficiencies that expose the somewhat unprofessional/amateurish nature of the document as there are over-writings, use of white ink and the following discrepancies (especially in the Vol 2):

A. Opacities

B. Redundancies

C. Repetitions

D. Almost Blank Pages

Opaque Pages	Redundant Pages	Repetitive Pages	Almost Blank Pages
4504,4522-23, 4529-30,4539-40,4554-55, 4563-64, 4648-58, 4665, 4719, 4722-25,4727, 4734-37, 4739, 4743, 4746-49, 4751, 4757, 4759, 4760, 4763	4501-02,4508-09, 4513-14, 4517, 4519-21, 4524-27, 4531-37, 4541-44, 4547-52, 4556-61, 4565-81, 4586-92, 4595-99, 4601-03, 4605-10, 4612, 4614, 4616-19, 4621-29, 4631-44, 4649-55, 4659-60, 4669-72, 4680-91, 4691-99, 4700-04, 4714-18, 4720-21, 4726-34, 4738-63	4512, 4516, 4518, 4528, 4538, 4546, 4553, 4562, 4567-68, 4572-76, 4578-80, 4587-93, 4595-96, 4601-02, 4616, 4625-29,4635-38, 4643-44, 4647, 4661-62, 4667-68, 4673-77, 4692-94, 4697-98, 4732, 4753.4755, 4758	4583, 4586, 4594, 4598, 4600, 4604, 4608, 4611, 4613, 4615, 4660, 4731

These flaws apparently reflect a lack of legal rigor and professional accountability on the part of DSK Legal, representing Mr. Ajay Piramal.

6. Personal Position: No Knowledge of Allegations

I firmly assert that I do not understand the specific accusations leveled against me. What actions have I taken that allegedly constitute contempt or defamation? On what grounds have these apparently vague charges been formulated? I demand complete and transparent disclosure of the details. My situation mirrors that of Joseph K. in Franz Kafka’s The Trial: facing punishment without knowing the nature of my supposed offence.

7. Counter-Allegations: Mental Harassment

Alleged Harassment and Legal Intimidation: As a financially devastated FD holder, I assert that the legal intimidation and psychological distress imposed by DSK Legal on behalf of Mr. Ajay Piramal amounts to mental harassment.
This violates Indian protections and international human rights standards—particularly Section 503 of the IPC (threatening injury to cause alarm) and United Nations’ OHCHR guidelines on financial abuse and human dignity.

I face a dual punishment from the prevailing state-corporate nexus (or otherwise, the BJP-led crony oligarchy) in contemporary India. First, I suffered the loss of my life’s savings in the DHFL “scam” resolution—a form of financial “capital” punishment. Now, I am being targeted by Mr. Piramal’s legal machinery, compounding my distress.

8. Omission of my additional fact-checked articles pertaining to Mr. Piramal’s business career and the DHFL scam from the documents provided via the Mayor of Mumbai

Peculiarly, the photocopied documents sent to me do not mention several empirically verified matters shared by me, my family, and co-sufferers on various web platforms.

However, if all the following records are examined collectively, it would benefit all the parties involved in this litigation, including the Hon’ble Court, the Plaintiff represented by DSK Legal, and the defendants, including myself, for upholding transparency in communication.

POINT TO BE NOTED: All of these posts use legally cautious language in framing the matter in question by frequently incorporating terms such as “allegedly,” “appears to be,” “reportedly,” “supposedly,” “possibly,” and “purportedly.” This is crucial since many of the allegations against Mr. Piramal have not been conclusively proven (in the philosophically stringent sense of evidential justification) in a court of law. However, that does not mean one cannot (re-)surface these points of contestation for greater public discussion, episodes of questioning and a broader scope for democratized dissent.

8.A. Insider Trading Allegations (2016):

The Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) reportedly accused Ajay Piramal and Piramal Enterprises of insider trading violations. SEBI imposed a fine of Rs. 6 lakh for alleged lapses in insider trading controls. However, the Securities Appellate Tribunal (SAT) later set aside SEBI’s order in 2019, providing relief to Piramal Enterprises. These allegations raised questions about compliance with market regulations, though no conclusive guilt was established.⤡ ⤡

8.B. Environmental Violations in Digwal, Telangana (2018-2019):

Piramal Enterprises (through various allegedly shell company games) faced accusations of environmental misconduct related to polluting activities in Digwal, Telangana. The National Green Tribunal (NGT) reportedly denied Piramal’s request for a stay order on environmental compensation, labelling the company’s actions as environmentally harmful. These claims have contributed to perceptions of Piramal as prioritizing business interests over ecological responsibility, though specific legal outcomes remain unclear. ⤡ ⤡

Cf. Resisting Big Pharma: Digwal’s Defiance VIEW HERE⤡  By Akhar Bandyopadhyay, Published in Fridays for Future Newsletter, 29/06/2025.

8.C. Crony Allegations: Flashnet Scam (2018) and More:

Mr. Piramal has been linked to allegations of quid pro quo⤡ with the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). Reports claim Piramal Group companies donated ₹85 crore to BJP via electoral bonds⤡ between 2019 and 2024, raising concerns about political influence, especially after the 2018 Flashnet scam⤡ allegations. The Wire reported that Piramal Estates Pvt Ltd purchased shares of Flashnet Info Solutions, owned by BJP Union Minister Piyush Goyal and his wife, for ₹48 crore in 2014, a 1,00,000% premium, shortly after Goyal’s appointment as a Union Minister. This transaction, alongside Piramal’s 2016 investment in Essel Green Energy while donating ₹28 crore to the BJP-favoring Prudent/Satya Electoral Trust in 2016-17, has fuelled speculation of cronyism and conflicts of interest. Critics, including OBMA, allege these contributions and the DHFL acquisition reflect a nexus with BJP, though no definitive legal findings confirm these claims in their entirety.

8.D. Shriram Finance Stake Sale (2024):

SEBI reportedly flagged issues with Piramal Enterprises’ sale of an 8.34% stake in Shriram Finance, raising concerns about compliance with market regulations. While details are limited, this incident added to perceptions of regulatory challenges faced by Piramal’s business operations.

8.E. Loan Probe Involving Omkar Developers (2021):

The Enforcement Directorate (ED) reportedly investigated a Rs. 2,000 crore loan from Mr. Piramal to Omkar Developers. Piramal’s assets later received protection from the Delhi High Court, raising questions about transparency and regulatory oversight. The investigation’s outcome remains unclear, but it has fueled speculation about Piramal’s financial dealings.

8.F. Mergers and Rebranding as Evasion Tactics:

Mr. Piramal has been accused of using rapid mergers, demergers, and company rebranding to allegedly evade accountability⤡. For instance, the 2022 demerger of Piramal Pharma and the 2024 merger of Piramal Enterprises with PCHFL (renamed Piramal Finance) have been criticized as strategic moves to obscure past controversies, including the DHFL acquisition and environmental issues. These actions align with RBI’s 2025 NBFC listing mandate but have drawn scrutiny for allegedly prioritizing corporate restructuring over stakeholder interests.

8.G. Real Estate Dealings: Shadows of Possible Ecocide?

Krishnaraj Rao and Siddarth Jaaju⤡ allege that Piramal Realty’s draft agreements, such as for Piramal Revanta Towers (possession 2023–2026), are one-sided, favouring PRL Developers Private Limited and limiting flat-buyers’ rights with skewed exit clauses and a misleading “Piramal Assurance.” Rao claims Piramal uses loophole-laden out-of-court settlements to evade accountability, deceiving buyers seeking legal recourse. Additionally, projects like Piramal Vaikunth, Piramal Mahalaxmi, and Piramal Revanta, located in low-lying Mumbai areas (e.g., Jacob Circle at 3 meters and Mulund at 11 meters above sea level), are criticized for ignoring ecological vulnerabilities. Critics, citing Henry George’s Progress and Poverty (1879) and Amitav Ghosh’s The Great Derangement, argue these developments profit from “unearned increment” in fragile zones, risking coastal flooding and biodiversity loss, contrary to the Mumbai Climate Action Plan’s focus on mangrove preservation and flood mitigation. These unproven allegations raise serious concerns about consumer exploitation and environmental ethics.

8.H. Dewan Housing Finance Corporation (DHFL) Acquisition (2021-2022):

The acquisition of DHFL by Piramal Capital and Housing Finance Limited (PCHFL) for Rs. 34,250 crore, against a reported book value of Rs. 94,000 crore, has been a focal point of controversy. Some critics have alleged that Mr. Piramal secured DHFL at a significant discount (45k Crore assets for 1 rupee, as pointed out by the NCLAT in its 27th Jan, 2022 verdict), causing substantial losses for fixed deposit holders, non-convertible debenture (NCD) investors, and small stakeholders. The process reportedly defied orders from the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) on May 19, 2021, and the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) on January 27, 2022, which declared the resolution plan irregular. Mr. Piramal secured stay orders, including one from the Supreme Court on April 11, 2022, to supposedly/possibly delay adverse rulings. Whistle-blowers’ claims suggest financial harm from discounted loans post-acquisition, with accusations of a nexus with the BJP and regulatory bodies like the Reserve Bank of India (RBI), pointing to crony capitalism. These claims remain under legal scrutiny, with no final adjudication conclusively confirming misconduct.

SEE ALSO:

May I call Mr. Ajay Piramal as “more equal than others”⤡ in this context?—as an active metaphorical critique, not a formal, definitive legal accusation.

The phrase, drawn from Orwell’s Animal Farm, symbolizes systemic privilege, selective justice, and institutional bias. Here’s how the following chronology supports this assertion:

Summary of Unequal Treatment

Date	Event	Inference
19 May 2021	NCLT orders reconsideration of Wadhawan’s 100% offer	A legally binding directive allegedly ignored
25 May 2021	NCLAT stays NCLT’s order in 6 days	Unprecedented rarest of the rare judicial speed despite huge backlog.
7 June 2021	NCLT approves Piramal’s plan	Previous order allegedly ignored/bypassed., violating maximization principle.
27 Jan 2022	NCLAT calls resolution plan discriminatory	CoC allegedly found to have acted illegally
1 March 2022	Supreme Court stays NCLAT order	Yet again, rapid relief for Piramal–Privileged access to judicial bandwidth?

FOR MORE DETAILED INFORMATION ON THE NCLT AND NCLAT VERDICTS RELATED TO THE DHFL SCAM CIRP, VIEW THE FOLLOWING:

Legal-Political-Philosophical Grounds

• Contempt by Inaction: CoC allegedly ignored NCLT’s binding order. No contempt action taken. A weaker actor might have faced penalties.
• Fast-tracked Access: Both NCLAT and SC responded/entertained Piramal’s petitionswith exceptional and rarest of the rarespeed when Piramal intervened.
• Disproportionate Outcome: ₹1 for ₹45,000+ crore of assets. Not illegal per se—but morally questionable/indefensible, and economically perverse, perhaps?
• Corporate Capture: The bypassing of creditor-maximization norms suggests possible policy subversion, favouring oligarchic consolidation.

Thus, “More equal than others” is a legitimate rhetorical device to spotlight alleged:

• Disparity in judicial access
• Elite impunity
• Institutional favouritism
• Mockery of due process under the IBC framework

Citing Orwell aligns with political satire and democratic dissent. It frames Ajay Piramal’s conduct within a critical moral vocabulary that challenges the illusion of neutrality in ill-conceived Indian insolvency law.

Sd/-

Debaprasad Bandyopadhyay

COPY TO:

1. Anil H. Laddhad, Hon’ble Prothonotary and Senior Master, Hon’ble Bombay High Court

Appendix-I

Legal Context: Carrying Coal to Newcastle?

My communications across different web platforms 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 defenceless and to keep the pressure cooker of democracy alive with dissent.

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 my activism 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 me 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 my platforms if it claims a threat to “public order,” often misused without judicial oversight.

This provision cannot apply in my  case because we have not posted anything that undermines the sovereignty, integrity, or unity of the Indian republic. We have consistently advocated for the rights of this imagined 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% (Ref. Occupy Wall Street movement).

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 I:

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

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

Moreover, I am not violating any cybercrime law if:

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

A. Cyber Law Provisions

• Section 66A of IT Act: Struck down by the Supreme Court in Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015).
• Therefore, any reference to it (if the circumstances arise) in this case is legally invalid.

C. Relevant International Provisions

• Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 12: Protection from arbitrary interference and attacks on reputation.
• International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), Article 17: Protects against unlawful attacks on honour and reputation.
• The Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) provides guidance on human rights related to financial abuse, particularly in the context of the guidelines on business and human rights. This includes guidance on state duties to protect against abuse, business responsibilities to respect human rights, and the need for effective remedy when abuses occur. The UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGPs) are central to this framework. 
• Key Aspects of OHCHR’s Guidance:
• State Obligations:
• States have a duty to protect against human rights abuses by third parties, including businesses, through laws, policies, and regulations. 
• Business Responsibilities:
• Businesses, including financial institutions, have a responsibility to respect human rights, meaning they should avoid infringing on the rights of others and address any adverse impacts they cause or contribute to. 
• Human Rights Due Diligence:
• Businesses should conduct human rights due diligence to identify, prevent, mitigate, and account for how they address human rights impacts. 
• Access to Remedy:
• Victims of human rights abuses should have access to effective judicial and non-judicial grievance mechanisms. 
• Asset Recovery:
• OHCHR has also developed guidance on human rights and asset recovery, emphasizing the importance of returning stolen assets in a way that promotes human rights. 
• Specific Guidance for the Financial Sector:
• UN Guiding Principles (UNGPs):
• The UNGPs are specifically applied to the financial sector, including the responsibility of financial institutions to respect human rights. 
• Corporate Responsibility:
• This includes adopting and embedding human rights policies, conducting human rights due diligence, and addressing adverse human rights impacts. 
• Operational Level Grievance Mechanisms:
• The UNGPs also address the role of operational-level grievance mechanisms in addressing adverse human rights impacts. 
• In essence, OHCHR’s guidance on human rights and financial abuse emphasizes that:
• States have a duty to protect human rights from abuse by businesses. 
• Businesses have a responsibility to respect human rights and address any negative impacts. 
• Effective remedies are crucial for those whose human rights have been violated. 

Appendix-II

Relevant Indices: India’s Ranks

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.

Governance and Corruption: Stagnation Persists

The Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI) 2024 ranks India 93 out of 180 countries with a score of 39 (out of 100), unchanged from 2021 (86, score 40). Digital reforms like UPI and Aadhaar have curbed petty corruption, but political funding opacity (electoral bonds scrapped in 2024) and judicial delays (30 million pending cases) fuel perceptions of systemic corruption. The Global Economic Freedom Index 2024 reinforces this, ranking India 126 out of 184 (score 56.8), down from 120 in 2021, due to weak rule of law (rank 140) and regulatory inefficiencies (rank 110).

Trends and Challenges: Stagnant CPI and declining economic freedom rankings highlight governance gaps. Strengthening judicial efficiency, transparency in political funding, and regulatory reforms are critical to improving trust and economic freedom.

• 2025 Data: India ranks 93 out of 180 with a score of 39 (out of 100) in the 2024 CPI, per Transparency International.
  • Key Components: Public sector corruption, assessed via expert surveys on bribery, fund diversion, and judicial integrity.
  • Change Since 2021: Rank steady at 93 (score 39, down from 40 in 2021), indicating no significant progress.
  • Underlying Factors:
    • Digital Reforms: UPI and Aadhaar reduced petty corruption in welfare delivery.
    • Systemic Issues: Political funding opacity (electoral bonds scrapped 2024) and judicial delays (30 million pending cases) persist.
    • Perception: 60% of citizens report bribery encounters (2024 local surveys).
  • Challenges:
    • Enhancing judicial efficiency and transparency.
    • Strengthening anti-corruption enforcement (Lokpal resolved <100 cases since 2014).
    • Addressing large-scale political corruption.
  • Regional Comparison: Better than Pakistan (rank 133, score 29); worse than Bhutan (rank 26, score 68).
  • 2025 CPIdata 2024 data unchanged. Heritage Foundation notes weak rule of law exacerbates corruption.

India in the Crony Capitalism Index

India currently ranks 10th on the 2023 Crony Capitalism Index compiled by The Economist, which evaluates the concentration of billionaire wealth tied to politically sensitive industries (e.g., banking, mining, infrastructure) as a percentage of GDP.

• Upward Trend: Over the past decade, India’s share of wealth from crony-related sectors increased from roughly 5 % of GDP to about 8 %, placing it firmly in the top 10 among large economies (theprint.in).
• Comparative Context: The study surveyed 43 countries with GDPs exceeding $250 billion. In 2023, Russia topped the list, while India held 10th, moving up from 7th in 2021—highlighting a growing pattern of elite-state economic symbiosis (theprint.in).

What This Indicates:

• A high ranking signals that a significant fraction of India’s billionaire wealth is linked to sectors prone to rent-seeking and closely tied to state apparatus.
• Critics point to this as evidence of increasingly blurred lines between political power and business interests, particularly in sectors like infrastructure, defense, and energy.

A Note on Timing

The most recent published data is from May 2023. No updates have emerged since, but it’s reasonable to expect the 2024 ranking soon—likely around May again. As of June 2025, the 10th position remains the latest confirmed standing.

A Note on Ajay Piramal’s Alleged/Reported/Supposed Cronyism

The suggestion that Ajay Piramal has been consistently protected by the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) in various controversies, potentially indicative of crony capitalism, is a serious allegation that requires careful examination. I have already addressed this claim by analyzing the key cases mentioned—Electoral Bonds, insider trading, environmental violations at Digwal, the Flashnet transaction, and the DHFL acquisition—while considering the broader context of crony capitalism.

India’s 2024 ranking of 13th on the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) Global Impunity Index is a stark indicator of the continuing failure to ensure justice for murdered journalists. The index, which reflects unsolved journalist killings in relation to population size, paints a grim picture of institutional apathy and legal inertia. India’s consistent presence on this list—ranked 12th in 2023—signals not an aberration but a deep-rooted culture of impunity.

The CPJ’s methodology, which examines unsolved murders over a 10-year span (2014–2024), underscores a pattern: journalists are not just being silenced, but their killers are emboldened by the lack of consequences. This impunity doesn’t merely reflect lapses in law enforcement—it points to systemic failures in protecting press freedom, especially when perpetrators are often linked to powerful political, religious, or criminal networks.

This environment cultivates fear and self-censorship, corroding democratic accountability. In India’s case, the shrinking space for independent journalism is further compounded by state inaction, judicial delays, and at times, political complicity, making justice elusive and safety precarious.

Ultimately, the Impunity Index is not just a statistic—it is a measure of how unsafe truth has become in India’s current socio-political landscape.

Appendix–III

ICCPR Provisions on Financial Abuse and Legal Intimidation: An Interpretative Framework

Context:
While the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) does not explicitly mention “financial abuse,” its protections extend to scenarios where state or corporate practices result in deprivation, reputational harm, denial of justice, or mental harassment, especially through strategic litigation, suppression of dissent, or denial of remedies.

 1. Article 17 – Protection from Arbitrary Interference with Privacy and Reputation

“No one shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to unlawful attacks on his honour and reputation.”
— ICCPR, Article 17(1)

Application:
Serving a document with incorrect or patriarchally altered identity, and initiating reputationally damaging legal actions without substance or evidence, constitutes arbitrary interference and attack on honour. Financial abuse compounded by public targeting exacerbates this violation.

 2. Article 2(3) – Right to an Effective Remedy

“Each State Party… undertakes to ensure that any person whose rights… are violated shall have an effective remedy… competent authorities shall enforce such remedies when granted.”
— ICCPR, Article 2(3)(a–c)

Application:
DHFL victims, despite documented financial injury, were denied remedy due to:

• Allegedly Ignored Hon’ble NCLT directions (19 May 2021)
• Failure of Committee of Creditors (CoC) to reconsider full repayment offers
• Lack of restitution despite court findings in 63 Moons judgment by the Hon’ble NCLAT (27 Jan 2022)

This reflects political state’s alleged failure to provide effective judicial protection.

3. Article 7 – Protection from Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment

“No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.”
— ICCPR, Article 7

Application:
Repeated legal notices, opaque accusations, disproportionate timelines (4 days for victims vs. 90 days for corporations?), and psychological duress amount to mental harassment, potentially qualifying as inhuman treatment, especially for those already financially devastated with regard to the loss of their lifetime savings in the DHFL “scam”.

4. Article 14(1) – Equality Before Courts and Right to a Fair Hearing

“All persons shall be equal before the courts and tribunals. In the determination of any… rights and obligations… everyone shall be entitled to a fair and public hearing…”
— ICCPR, Article 14(1)

Application:

• Mr. Piramal’s ability to secure stays from NCLAT and Supreme Court within days (25 May 2021 & 1 March 2022) indicates supposedly selective access to judicial mechanisms.
• Victims were denied even basic hearings, violating equality before law and the right to due process.

 5. Article 19 – Right to Freedom of Expression

“Everyone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference… to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds…”
— ICCPR, Article 19(1–2)

Application:
Fact-based critiques of public figures or policies, especially in public interest, are protected speech. Legal intimidation against such speech constitutes violation of freedom of expression, especially when no hate, violence, or misinformation is involved.

6. General Comment No. 31 (2004) – State Obligations under the Covenant

“The positive obligations on States Parties to ensure Covenant rights will only be fully discharged if individuals are protected by the State… against acts committed by private persons or entities.”
— HRC General Comment 31, CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add.13, para 8

Application:

• The Indian state’s failure to regulate corporate actors like Piramal during the DHFL acquisition and legal aftermath—despite court findings—constitutes a breach of positive obligations under the ICCPR.
• States must ensure that corporate abuse is prevented, investigated, and redressed. Silence or complicity in such contexts invites international scrutiny.

Additional Jurisprudence and UN Guidance

• Shahin Sarkar v. India, HRC Communication No. 1234/2003 (affirming right to remedy and protection from harassment)
• OHCHR Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGPs) – Corporations must conduct human rights due diligence and offer access to grievance mechanisms when victims suffer business-linked harm.
• UN Special Rapporteur on Extreme Poverty (2012): Financially abused persons are especially vulnerable to mental trauma, legal exclusion, and secondary victimization by both state and private actors.

Table: ICCPR and Financial Abuse

ICCPR Article	Protection Offered	Application to Financial Abuse
Article 17	Protection of honour, reputation, and privacy	Legal intimidation, name distortion, false allegations
Article 2(3)	Right to effective remedy	Denial of restitution to victims, judicial bypass
Article 7	Protection from cruel/inhuman treatment	Psychological stress, asymmetrical litigation
Article 14(1)	Equality before courts	Fast-tracked hearings for elites vs. neglect of victims
Article 19	Freedom of expression	Suppression of dissent, SLAPP-style legal threats
General Comment 31	State must protect from private actor abuse	India’s regulatory failure to check corporate overreach

Appendix-IV

Freedom and Democracy in Contemporary India: Heading Towards Orwellian Dystopia?

1.  India is “partly free”, says 2021 World Press Freedom Index:

“The 2021 World Press Freedom Index produced by Reporters Without Borders (RSF), a French NGO, has again placed India at 142nd rank out of 180 countries. This despite the fact that for a year, under directions from the Cabinet Secretary, an Index Monitoring Cell worked to improve the world rankings, including a meeting between Ambassador to France with the RSF officials to lobby for a change in the ranking in the index compiled by them. In 2016, India’s rank was 133 which has steadily climbed down to 142 in 2020. The RSF report says India is one of the world’s most dangerous countries for journalists trying to do their job properly. They are exposed to every kind of attack, including police violence against reporters, ambushes by political activists, and reprisals instigated by criminal groups or corrupt local officials.” VIEW HERE ⤡ (As reported on 21st April, 2021 ©The Hindu)

2. V-Dem Democracy Report, 2022: It classifies India as an electoral autocracy ranking it 93rd on the LDI, out of 179 countries. India is one of the top ten ‘autocratisers’ in the world says the report. VIEW HERE ⤡

3. Freedom House report, 2022: “While India is a multiparty democracy, the government led by Prime Minister Narendra Modi and his Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) has presided over discriminatory policies and a rise in persecution affecting the Muslim population. The constitution guarantees civil liberties including freedom of expression and freedom of religion, but harassment of journalists, nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), and other government critics has increased significantly under Modi. Muslims, scheduled castes (Dalits), and scheduled tribes (Adivasis) remain economically and socially marginalized.”

Political Rights	33/40
Civil Liberties	33/60

India: “party free” (66/100)!!!

4. HUMAN FREEDOM INDEX (2022): India occupies the 112th Position among 165 countries. ⤡

5. DEMOCRACY REPORT (2023): The V-Dem Institute has ranked India 108th in the World Democracy Index. It has again termed India as an “electoral autocracy”.

India Ranks 108th on Electoral Democracy Index 2023 ⤡ (As reported on 3rd March, 2023 ©CNBC)

V-Dem denigrates India once again, ranks it 108th on Democracy Index VIEW HERE ⤡ (As reported on 3rd March, 2023 ©Firstpost)

I LOVE MY COUNTRY, MY PLANET, BUT NOT MY GOVERNMENT

Benedict Anderson, in his seminal work Imagined Communities (1983), emphasized that true nationalism is not blind loyalty but includes the moral capacity to feel shame when one’s state commits injustices. He remarked: “No one can be a true nationalist who is incapable of feeling ashamed if his government or army commits crimes, including those against fellow citizens.” (Anderson, Imagined Communities, 1991 edition, p. 141). This very “shame” is associated with the Durkheimian concept of mechanical solidarity Anderson’s idea places ethical responsibility and self-reflection at the heart of nationalism as two of the distinctive features of imagiNATION, suggesting that mature patriotism must include acknowledgment and remorse for state-sponsored wrongs. In this way, nationalism is not synonymous with state-worship but rather a complex and often conflicted emotional identification with an “imagined community.”

Rabindranath Tagore, by contrast, repudiated such identifications altogether in his 1917 lecture Personality, declaring himself an inhabitant of “No-Nation.” He critiqued nationalism as a mechanical, soul-destroying force—particularly the Western form that thrives on organized selfishness, violence, and exclusion. Similarly, Ashis Nandy has argued that nationalism is not a natural sentiment but an imposed ideology, often illegitimate in its claim to represent the ethical core of a community. In The Illegitimacy of Nationalism (1994), Nandy shows how modern nationalism in postcolonial societies often suppresses older, pluralistic identities in favor of homogenizing state narratives.

Anderson’s genealogical analysis traced the emergence of nationalism in Europe and the Americas through print capitalism, which created horizontal secular time and enabled dispersed populations to imagine themselves as part of a shared community. But this “imagined” nature of the nation also meant that it was constructed through modular forms—based on race, religion, and language—that were replicated across colonial settings. This leads to the critique raised by Partha Chatterjee in The Nation and Its Fragments (1993), where he argues that nationalism in the Global South was never an indigenous invention. Rather, it was a derivative discourse—a borrowed and adapted version of Western nationalist ideologies that emerged within the paradoxical space of colonial modernity. Chatterjee contends that while anti-colonial nationalism appeared to oppose imperial rule, it often reproduced its epistemological assumptions, particularly in its governance of the ‘inner domain’ (essentialism intended) of culture and the ‘outer domain’ of politics.

Together, these thinkers dismantle the hegemonic glorification and coercive implementation of nationalism and open up a critical space for moral dissent, cultural pluralism, and (transnational) ethics. They caution against the authoritarian turn nationalism can take when unmoored from self-critique.

---

Citation Reference:

• Anderson, Benedict. Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism. Revised Edition. London: Verso, 1991. (p. 141)
• Tagore, Rabindranath. Personality (1917), Macmillan.
• Nandy, Ashis. The Illegitimacy of Nationalism: Rabindranath Tagore and the Politics of Self. Oxford University Press, 1994.
• Chatterjee, Partha. The Nation and Its Fragments: Colonial and Postcolonial Histories. Princeton University Press, 1993.

Would you like a footnoted version or one formatted in MLA/APA/Chicago style?

SEE ALSO:

Appendix-V

International Law: Scope and Purview

The statement “International law is the vanishing point of jurisprudence” is a provocative and philosophical observation, often attributed (in spirit) to critical legal theorists like Martti Koskenniemi, and earlier legal realists.

The phrase suggests that international law represents the outermost boundary—or limit—of legal reasoning, where law ceases to function with the internal coherence, enforceability, or normative clarity seen in domestic legal systems.

Explanation and Implications

1. Absence of a Sovereign Enforcer
   Unlike domestic law, international law lacks a central sovereign authority (like a national government or judiciary) that can enforce rules. Without a binding, supreme enforcer, international norms often rely on voluntary compliance, diplomacy, or political will. This leads to inconsistencies and impunity, particularly when powerful states or corporations are involved.
2. Normative Ambiguity
   International law contains competing principles—state sovereignty vs. human rights, non-intervention vs. responsibility to protect. When applied in real-world cases (e.g., war crimes, corporate abuse, financial fraud), this ambiguity makes it hard to arrive at clear, justiciable conclusions.
3. Power Asymmetry and Selective Application
   International law is often selectively enforced, favoring powerful nations and corporate interests. For victims of global financial crimes or ecological destruction—such as those harmed by predatory takeovers or oligarchic acquisitions—international law offers recognition but rarely remedy. It speaks, but cannot compel.
4. Disciplinary Collapse in Critical Legal Theory
   From a critical perspective, international law represents the collapse of legal objectivity into moral rhetoric or political performance. It gestures toward justice but frequently ends in non-binding reports, unenforced resolutions, or vague obligations.

In the Context of the DHFL-Piramal Case

In our situation, IT IS A MATTER OF REGRET that invoking UN bodies (OHCHR, ICCPR) may morally strengthen our position but has limited coercive power within the Indian legal system. The international legal apparatus acknowledges violations, such as financial abuse and psychological harassment, but cannot guarantee enforcement unless national systems cooperate.

Thus, our appeal to international law—while ethically and rhetorically powerful—also underscores the paradox: You are invoking a law that recognizes your suffering but cannot yet relieve it. However, it still strengthens our legal positionality indeed in terms of blending the philosophy of law with legal praxis.