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 a 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)

Updated on 2nd July, 2025 (GMT 15:01 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. Additionally, my age is also incorrectly mentioned. This raises a fundamental question: is the case really meant for me, or am I being wrongfully targeted?

THE PHENOMENOLOGY OF THE TARGETED “I”: How do I identify myself? In terms of these external identifiers? I was misnamed. The name is patriarchally-derived. I was misaged. I was assigned a year that does not match my lived time. And I was given a number. Defendant No. 6. Not even my name. These identifiers were chosen for me—by state, system, language, father. They are not neutral. Each comes with an intent to fixate, contain, and often, to diminish. None of them emerge from my own voice, from my own telling of my self. In being so labeled, I was thrown (geworfen) into a world not of my choosing: into names, numbers, and times imposed by das Man, the impersonal “they” of social norms. These are not my essence, because Dasein is not a thing to be named, but a possibility always becoming. What do I make of my-self, without causing essentialism of the crudest variety? I speak from fracture, not fixity. From unfolding, not from preordained essence. I am not the sum of mistaken records—I am the being that resists reduction. My identity is not given—it is to be reclaimed in my way of being in the world.

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

Oh Pharmakon! What’s in a name? That which we call poison
By any other name would taste as insidious.

(With Apologies to the Bard of Avon!)

2. Same Way Around: Use of Defunct Corporate Identity “PCHFL” Post-Renaming

In what can only be described as a moment of legal irony—an “Eureka moment”—it has come to light that the plaintiff continues to be referred to as “Piramal Capital & Housing Finance Ltd (PCHFL)” even in court documents dated after the official change of name to “Piramal Finance Ltd” on 22 March 2025.

The suit is said to have been admitted on 17 March 2025 (under the name PCHFL), but shockingly, a critical court document—signed “for the Prothonotary and Senior Master”—is dated 24 April 2025, still bearing the outdated corporate name “PCHFL.”

2. A. Context and Chronology of Events

This objection is being raised with reference to procedural impropriety and possible misrepresentation concerning the use of the corporate name “Piramal Capital & Housing Finance Ltd (PCHFL)” in court documents subsequent to its official renaming.

Event	Date
Plaints Lodged (Suit No. 42/2025)	12 January 2023
Plaints Admitted (as claimed by Plaintiff)	17 March 2025
Name Change from PCHFL to Piramal Finance	22 March 2025
Document signed “For Prothonotary and Senior Master”	24 April 2025

2. B. Legal Grounds for Objection

1. Post-22 March 2025, the entity formerly known as PCHFL no longer legally exists under that name, having been renamed to Piramal Finance Ltd, a matter of public record.
2. The plaint dated 24 April 2025—signed and accepted on behalf of the Hon’ble Prothonotary and Senior Master—continues to refer to the plaintiff as “PCHFL”, which constitutes a legal and procedural inconsistency.
3. The use of a defunct name in official court documents after the name change is in direct violation of:
   • The Companies Act, 2013 (Section 13 read with Rule 29 of Companies (Incorporation) Rules)
   • Basic tenets of procedural propriety under Order VI of the CPC (especially Rules 14 and 17)
   • Principles of natural justice requiring full and accurate disclosure of party identity
4. Failure to amend the plaint or notify the court of the name change may amount to misrepresentation and can potentially mislead the court and prejudice the defense.

3. 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.

4. Point of Clarification

I express cautious relief at reports that the defamation case (Sc/1227/2023) has seemingly (appears to have) 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? I remember responding to those defamation accusations through the following:

5. 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 at 16:30 IST, giving me nearabout five days to respond till the next date of hearing on 3rd July, 2025. 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.

6. A SLAPP in the Face of Dissent

A DHFL Victim’s Response to Corporate-Legal overreach

Upon a close and distressing examination of the legal document served to me on 28 June 2025—bearing overwriting, white ink corrections, and procedural vagueness (cf. Section 6 below)—it became evident that this is probably not a legitimate legal grievance, but supposedly a textbook case of a Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation (SLAPP).

These types of lawsuits, widely criticized in democracies across the world, are intended to harass, intimidate, and silence individuals who raise uncomfortable truths about power. In this case, it appears that Mr. Ajay Piramal and his legal firm DSK Legal are possibly using the judiciary not as a forum of justice but allegedly as a weapon of suppression against financially abused fixed deposit holders who are merely seeking distributive justice.

SLAPPs are lawsuits filed with the primary objective of punishing citizens for participating in public discourse or protest. These legal attacks often wear the mask of defamation, contempt, or injunctions—but their actual goal is to silence whistleblowers, citizen petitioners, or online commentators.

6.A. Why This Case Resembles a SLAPP

(i) Asymmetrical Timeframes: Piramal/DSK Legal took 90 days to file a notice. I was given only 4–5 days to respond.

(ii) Amateurism as Weapon: The document is riddled with mistakes, redundancies, and opacity—possibly to confuse and intimidate.

(iii) Cancelled Cases Resurrected: Defamation charges reportedly cancelled by the Hon’ble Court are being used again in a coercive fashion.

(iv) Mental Harassment: Targeting economically fragile citizens with layered legalese and sudden deadlines adds to psychological and emotional stress.

6.B. Legal and Institutional Gaps

India currently has no specific anti-SLAPP legislation, unlike places like California or British Columbia. In the absence of such protections, SLAPPs thrive in our legal grey zones, enabled by:

• Criminal defamation (IPC Sections 499–500)
• Civil defamation suits
• Abuses of contempt of court
• Pre-litigation intimidation

This legal notice is not about justice; it is about silencing. It is about coercion, not clarity. I urge readers, civil rights advocates, and judicial reformers to recognize the creeping normalization of legal intimidation—and to name it for what it is: a SLAPP.

SLAPP Tactics in the Piramal–DHFL Context

SLAPP Characteristic	Manifestation in this Case
Excessive Damage Claims	₹100 crore defamation suits against small victims and activists who exposed corporate-government nexus.
Legal Harassment	Repeated court summons, venue shopping, and choice of jurisdiction (e.g., Mumbai where victims cannot easily appear).
Resource Asymmetry	Piramal, with elite legal backing (DSK Legal), vs. financially distressed depositors forced into pro se appearances.

Only a collective, strategic, and rights-based resistance can stem the tide of this corporate-legal nexus that is currently poisoning the roots of our democratic legal system.

7. Mr. Piramal’s DHFL “Takeover” through the Lens of Tort Law

Tort Law: Private Wrongs and Public Harm

Tort law deals with civil wrongs that cause harm to individuals, outside of contracts or criminal law. In the context of the DHFL takeover:

Potential/Alleged/Supposed Tortious Wrongs Involved

Tort	Application to Piramal–DHFL Case
Presumed Misrepresentation & Deceit	If key facts (e.g., Wadhawan’s 100% offer) were concealed or misrepresented to stakeholders or the public.
Reported Negligence	If the CoC and Mr. Piramal allegedly failed in their duty of care to protect fixed depositors’ interests during the resolution.
Possible Conspiracy (economic tort)	If actions by Mr. Piramal and CoC officials were coordinated to suppress competing bids or circumvent fair value maximization under IBC.
Breach of Statutory Duty	Allegedly violating IBC principles, especially Section 30(2)(e) (non-discriminatory treatment of creditors) may have tort implications.

Tort law here functions not only as a civil remedy but also as a moral-legal framework to expose how economic violence was inflicted on small depositors, especially when their claims were deeply discounted or excluded.

Why This Is Systemically Dangerous

• Tortious behavior by corporate acquirers in IBC cases erodes the fiduciary and ethical duties owed to vulnerable stakeholders (like FD-holders).
• SLAPP suits weaponize defamation to create a chilling legal environment where public dissent is crushed by litigation power.
• The combined effect is a grave distortion of justice: legal mechanisms that should protect the weak instead shield the rich.

Possible Legal Remedies & Countermeasures

Remedy	Description
Anti-SLAPP legislation (currently lacking in India)	Would allow early dismissal of lawsuits meant to silence public participation.
Tort actions against CoC or RP	Could be explored where their actions harmed small investors by breaching statutory duty under IBC.
Public interest litigation (PIL)	To question the discriminatory resolution plan and coercive use of defamation as a silencing tool.
NHRC/Human Rights Forums	To highlight the structural victimization of financially exploited citizens.

8. Material Discrepancies in the Legal Document

Upon closely reviewing the content sent to me via the Mayor of Mumbai, 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

Vol.1

1. Almost blank pages: pp. 5-7
2. Contradictory remarks and unnecessary scepticism about my identity related to my officially/legally verified X (formerly Twitter) account; Point 8, pg.24.
3. Thanks to the DSK Legal for (a) notarizing the documents on the cancelled defamation case against me and others and (b) for sharing it with me:

• Cancelled Pages and Strikethroughs: Pages 13-16, 20, 67-69, 72, 76, 78.

Vol. 2

1. Use of white ink: pg.1
2. All the tweets are not mentioned (X/Twitter account). Why? what is the stake?
3. The Table on aforementioned A, B, C, D:

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.

Even the plaintiffs had photocopied my (a transparency activist) several RTIs, repetitively often without any association with this case–but for what? What is the raison d’être? Let me go out of the track–I wish to share my last 2 or 3 years experience with you.

In the context of the contemporary Indian political economy (which has been reduced to nothing more than an Orwellian state), even though the panopticon Big Brother is watching us, we have found that the present ruling party is maintaining secrecy. This special “will to hide” (Jugupsā/Erit Celare) is totally an one-way traffic. In the epoch of information society, the masters of the universe are lacking transparency when it comes to the question of having access to public records.

Thus begins the inquiry beyond the familiar realms, to embrace the uncanny horizons: to unveil (Gestell or enframed revealing; Heidegger) the unknown and unknowable “truths”, at a time upholding and subverting the metaphysical bias for origin-al truth claims in the abundance of heterogeneous, overlapping, rhizomatic contingencies. The purpose of this initiative is to informally formulate: “Will To Hide” (as opposed to “Will To Confess/Reveal) from the perspective of the omniscient Panopticon’s (Bentham to Foucault) “Will To Govern” and the Orwellian dystopic prophecy “Big Brother is Watching You”.

This further leads us to the ‘Orwell’s problem’ as proposed by Chomsky (1986):  the problem of explaining how people can know so little even when the evidence is before their very eyes. It reflects a ruthless policy of totalitarian control, characterized by pervasive propaganda, intrusive surveillance, disinformation, and systematic denial of truth—a tactic often labelled as “doublethink”. This strategy involves reshaping or erasing history, even going so far as to create “unpersons”—individuals whose very existence is erased from public records and collective memory. This approach is commonly wielded by contemporary authoritarian regimes to suppress dissent, manipulate perceptions, and maintain an iron grip on power.

9. 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. Hence, I am involved in a sort of Kafkaesque entanglement.

10. Counter-Allegations: Psychosomatic 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.

11. 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.

11.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.⤡ ⤡

11.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.

11.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.

11.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.

11.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.

11.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.

11.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.

11.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:

11.I. Piramal More Equal Than Others? A Comparative Reflection on Judicial Priorities in India

May I call Mr. Ajay Piramal as “more equal than others”⤡ in this context?—as an active metaphorical critique, not as 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 comparative chronology of (a) Detention Without Trial; (b) Court Case pendency; (c) Hustle, Rush, ….Speed: Ajay Piramal’s Cases support this assertion.

(a) Detention Without Trial : The Indian Scenario

In the Indian context, here’s a clear and up-to-date snapshot of people held in jail without conviction (under-trial prisoners in the guise of “preventive detention”) and how long they remain detained:

Scale of Under-Trial Detention

• As of end-2022, India had a total prison population of roughly 573,220, of which 75.8% (~434,300) were under-trial prisoners (prisonstudies.org).
• This places India at the world’s sixth-highest rate of pre-trial detention—among Commonwealth nations, it’s second only to Bangladesh .

Duration of Detention

• Around one in four under-trials have been in jail for 1 year or more, and approximately one in eight for 2–5 years (indiaspend.com).
• The share of under-trials detained for 3–5 years nearly doubled between 2012 and 2022, while those held over 5 yearstripled in the same period (theprint.in).
  • In 2022 specifically, 22% of under-trials spent 1–3 years in detention .

Regional Distribution

• Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, and Maharashtra together account for 42% of all under-trial prisoners (theprint.in).
  • UP alone had 94,000+ under-trials by December 2022 (theprint.in).

What’s Driving These Detentions?

1. Bail bottlenecks – delays in surety verification and court timelines often deny bail (theprint.in).
2. Judicial backlog – India’s courts face over 52 million pending cases, significantly slowing trial timelines (reddit.com).
3. Legal aid gaps – shortage of representation leaves many indigent accused unable to effectively seek bail (pretrialrights.org).

Legal Framework (Ideal vs. Reality)

• Law allows only 24 hours in police custody, then magistrate review, followed by judicial custody restrictions up to 60–90 days before a charge sheet must be filed (pretrialrights.org).
• However, in practice, charges often get delayed, and bail denials are common—resulting in long pre-trial incarceration.

Summary Table

Metric	Statistics (India)
Under-trial share of inmates	76% of total prison population
Total under-trials	434,300 (of 573,220 total inmates)
1+ years in custody	25% of under-trials
2–5 years in custody	12.5% of under-trials
3–5 years in custody (2022 trends)	Almost doubled since 2012
5+ years in custody	Tripled since 2012
Key states (UP, Bihar, Maharashtra)	42% of all under-trials

Implications

• The vast majority of prisoners have not been convicted, yet often undergo extended pre-trial detention.
• India’s justice system is facing severe delays, overcrowding, and prolonged injustices—with many languishing for years before trial.
• Legal reforms—like a separate Bail Act, faster surety verification, and expanded legal aid—are widely recommended to decongest jails.

(b) Court Case pendency in India

Here’s a detailed snapshot of court case pendency in India, including how long cases have been pending:

Current Backlog: As of 2025

• Total pending cases across all court levels (Supreme Court, High Courts, district/subordinate courts) stand at over 52 million (52 million) (en.wikipedia.org).
• In district and subordinate courts alone, more than 41.5 million cases await resolution (reddit.com).
• High Courts have about 6.2 million (62 lakh) pending cases, of which 1.6 million are criminal (newindianexpress.com).
• The Supreme Court has around 70,000–82,000 cases pending (thehindu.com).

Age of Pending Cases

• Cases pending for over 30 years:
  • District courts: ~101,837 cases (legalserviceindia.com, ndtv.com)
  • High Courts: ~71,204 cases (ndtv.com)
  • Combined total (district + High Court): ~173,000 cases (ndtv.com)
• Additionally:
  • High Courts: another ~180,000 cases are 20–30 years old (indiatoday.in).
  • District/subordinate courts: over 100,000 are 30+ years old, with ~493,000 20–30 years, and ~2.89 million 10–20 years (legalserviceindia.com).
• In total:
  • ~400,000+ cases over 30 years old across all court levels.
  • ~560,000 cases over 20 years old (district + High Court) (reddit.com, thehindu.com).

Growing Backlog Triggers

• From 2019 to 2022, there was a 27% increase in total case backlog (en.wikipedia.org).
• As of April 2022, over 180,000 cases have been pending 30+ years (en.wikipedia.org).
• These long-delayed cases include some dating back to the 1950s (thehindu.com).

Summary Table

Court Level	Total Pending Cases	Cases >10 years	Cases >20 years	Cases >30 years
District/Subordinate	~41.5 million	~4 million	~0.6 million	~0.1 million (~102k)
High Courts	~6.2 million	~1.8 million (est.)	~0.18 million	~0.071 million (71k)
Supreme Court	~70–82k	Not specified	—	~20+? (small)
Total	~52 million	—	~0.78 million	~0.4 million+

Why This Matters

• People experience extremely long delays—decades in some regional high courts or district courts.
• Justice delayed can mean justice denied—in both civil and criminal cases.
• Critical bottlenecks include:
  1. Judge shortages – India has 21 judges per million population vs. a recommended 50; ~20% of positions are vacant (thehindu.com, en.wikipedia.org, en.wikipedia.org, timesofindia.indiatimes.com).
  2. Frequent adjournments, lack of records, and court stays (reddit.com).
  3. Mass government litigation and procedural delays .

In Summary:

• 52 million cases pending overall.
• 0.4 million+ over 30 years old.
• 0.8 million over 20 years old.
• District courts are the worst hit by backlog in absolute numbers.

economictimes.indiatimes.com

timesofindia.indiatimes.com

12. Hustle, Rush, ….Speed: Ajay Piramal’s Cases

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 Mr. Piramal’s plan	Previous order allegedly ignored/bypassed., purportedly violating maximization principle.
27 Jan 2022	NCLAT calls the DHFL resolution plan and process to be discriminatory, illegal, full of material irregularities on the basis of 63 Moons’ arguments	CoC allegedly found to have acted illegally
1 March 2022	Supreme Court stays NCLAT order	Yet again, rapid relief for Mr. Piramal–Privileged access to judicial bandwidth?

Comparative Table: Ajay Piramal Case vs. General Judicial Reality

Date	Ajay Piramal / DHFL Case Event	Inference / Disparity Noted	Contrast with Common Citizens
19 May 2021	NCLT orders reconsideration of Wadhawan’s 100% offer	Legally binding directive allegedly ignored	Common litigants wait years for basic orders to be enforced
25 May 2021	NCLAT stays NCLT’s order within 6 days	Unprecedented judicial speed—possibly influenced by corporate privilege	Over 52 million cases pending; 173,000+ stuck for 30+ years
7 June 2021	NCLT approves Mr. Piramal’s plan ignoring earlier directive	Earlier order bypassed, supposedly undermining IBC’s core tenet of value maximization	Common undertrials routinely denied procedural fairness, spend years in jail without trial or verdict
27 Jan 2022	NCLAT finds many aspects of the plan and process contrary to law	CoC’s conduct deemed illegal; process credibility questioned	Citizens languish for decades for such findings; legal recourse for exploited depositors slow and erratic
1 Mar 2022	Supreme Court stays NCLAT order in < 5 weeks	Yet again, lightning relief for Piramal—indicative of privileged access to apex court	76% of Indian prisoners are undertrials, many jailed for 2–5 years without even a first hearing
2022–2025	Multiple depositors’ cases delayed, dismissed, or redirected on technicalities	Victim-citizens face procedural wrangling and forum shopping	Even SC registry rejections routinely happen for public interest cases, while corporate appeals sail through swiftly

Key Contrasts

Speed for Mr. Piramal vs. Delay for Millions

• While corporate petitions involving thousands of crores get same-day listings, ordinary undertrials and civil litigants:
  • Wait months for bail hearings
  • Spend years without charges framed
  • Face administrative detention far longer than legal limits

Judicial Bandwidth Allocation

• Mr. Piramal received 3 swift hearings across NCLT, NCLAT, and SC within less than a year.
• Meanwhile:
  • Over 400,000 cases are pending for 20+ years
  • India’s undertrial prison population (75.8%) reflects mass procedural abandonment

Unequal Access to Legal Remedies

• SC’s stay order on behalf of Mr. Piramal occurred in record time.
• For poor litigants:
  • Bail pleas are deferred, dismissed, or infructuous due to death or prolonged detention.
  • Many die in custody awaiting trial, let alone verdict.

Two Judicial Indias

• For the rich and corporate elite:
  • Swift hearings, interim reliefs, and privileged listings dominate.
• For ordinary citizens:
  • Chronic delay, detention without trial, and judicial silence define their encounter with the justice system.

The Piramal-DHFL timeline is not merely about one corporate resolution plan—it is a case study in systemic inequality, showing how judicial discretion may reflect structural bias.

For more detailed information on the NCLT and NCLAT verdicts related to the dhfl scam cirp, view the following:

For an in-depth analysis of the Supreme Court’s verdict on the DHFL “scam” cases dated April 1, 2025, please refer to 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 in this con-textuality 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 the ill-conceived, heavily amended Indian insolvency law.

Much Ado About Nothing: Don John is Captured

Don John is eventually captured—not through might or cunning, but through the unraveling of his own deceit. A similar reckoning seems due here.

For all the legal theatre mounted by powerful corporate actors, the substance often falls apart under basic scrutiny. If the name of the plaintiff is legally incorrect, if the timelines contradict due process, and if procedural fairness is replaced with crony corporate convenience, then what are we left with but a hollow pursuit of justice?

This objection is not merely technical—it is existential. It asks whether courts of law will remain temples of justice or risk becoming instruments of intimidation for the few who can afford it. The goal is not vengeance, but truth. Not obstruction, but accountability.

If this is indeed “much ado about nothing,” let it be so because the law has prevailed—not because the loudest voice drowned out the weakest.

Sd/-

Dr. 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: “partly 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 favour 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.

We are currently witnessing a significant turn in contemporary Indian polity, where journalists, students, and activists are being unjustly labeled as “anti-nationals” merely for having the courage to speak up against any and every form of oppression or injustice.

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.

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: One is invoking a law that recognizes one’s 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.

Appendix-VI

Lawyers: Beyond Representation, In Favour of Increased Disputes?

As expressed by Flaubert in his Dictionary of Accepted Ideas⤡, the role of lawyers often goes beyond mere representation:

“LAWYERS. Too many in Parliament. Their judgment is warped. Of a lawyer who is a poor speaker, say: ‘Yes, but he knows his books.’”

Similarly, Hind Swaraj (1909) highlights the exploitative nature of the legal profession, as written by a briefless barrister from London and South Africa:

“The lawyers, therefore, will, as a rule, advance quarrels instead of repressing them. Moreover, men take up that profession, not in order to help others out of their miseries, but to enrich themselves. It is one of the avenues of becoming wealthy… They are glad when men have disputes. Petty pleaders actually manufacture them. Their touts, like so many leeches, suck the blood of the poor people.” ⤡

Annexure I

Analysis of DSK Legal’s Role in Legal Intimidation of DHFL Victims

Attached to: Response to Legal Notice Dated 17 March 2025 (Received 28 June 2025)

1. Introduction

This annexure documents the troubling role of DSK Legal, the legal representative of Mr. Ajay Piramal and Piramal Capital & Housing Finance Ltd. (PCHFL), in the matter concerning DHFL fixed deposit holders. The firm’s actions demonstrate procedural asymmetry, questionable professional conduct, and potential violations of both ethical and human rights standards.

2. Timeline of Procedural Asymmetry

Event	Details
Suit Filed by DSK Legal	17 March 2025, in Hon’ble Bombay High Court
Notice Received by Respondent	28 June 2025 at ~16:30 IST
Response Time Given to Victim	5 Days
Time Usually Available to Plaintiff (DSK)	Up to 90 Days

Observation: This stark procedural asymmetry reflects a design of possible legal coercion.

3. Document Deficiencies and Legal Concerns

• Multiple overwritings and white ink corrections present.
• Presence of redundant legalese and duplicated citations.
• Absence of clarity regarding charges or grounds for complaint.

These flaws indicate an amateurish and coercive legal process, lacking in diligence, professionalism and clarity.

4. Alleged Legal Harassment

Victims of DHFL, many of whom are elderly, retired, or economically distressed, report that:

• Legal notices were framed with intimidating language.
• Notices referenced apparently cancelled defamation cases.
• Victims were served without sufficient explanation or legal context.

This is not merely asymmetrical—it appears to be a calculated form of legal intimidation by design.

5. Satirical Note from Victims

“Thanks to DSK Legal for: (a) notarizing and circulating documents on a cancelled defamation case, and (b) sharing them with the very people they attempted to silence.”

6. External Scrutiny and Ethical Red Flags

The Bar Council of India issued a Notice (March 2025) to DSK Legal for allegedly violating advertising rules. The Bar Council of India (BCI) has issued a stern warning against lawyers promoting their services through social media, fame-backed videos, or influencer marketing, particularly in light of a recent promotional clip by DSK Legal featuring Bollywood star Rahul Bose. Such tactics are deemed unethical and violate Rule 36, Chapter II, Part VI of the BCI regulations, which prohibit both direct and indirect solicitation or advertising of legal work. Emphasizing that the legal profession is a public service rooted in justice and trust—not a commercial endeavor—the BCI stated that this type of marketing undermines the profession’s dignity and may mislead the public. To address this trend, the council has directed the immediate removal of all such promotional content and prohibited the use of celebrities, banners, digital ads, or engagement through non‑enrolled influencers. Violators face severe consequences, including suspension or cancellation of enrollment, contempt proceedings in the Supreme Court, and complaints to digital platforms. The BCI has also urged these platforms to implement proper vetting systems to eliminate misleading legal advertisements. This action builds on an earlier ruling from the Madras High Court (July 2024) and Supreme Court precedents like AK Balaji v Union of India, affirming that legal services cannot be commercialized through paid promotions or online solicitation—even via portals like Just Dial, Quikr, or Sulekha.

When they try to remove the voices of legitimate democratic dissent by victims of financial abuse, they themselves have quite recently faced such removal warnings! What you sow is what you reap? The question remains open.

SOURCES:

BCI Condemns Lawyers Advertising Services on Social Media Following DSK Legal Incident VIEW HERE ⤡ (As reported on 18th March, 2025 ©Advocate’s Journal)      

BCI sends notice to DSK Legal for violation of law firm advertisement norms VIEW HERE ⤡ (As reported on 20th March, 2025 ©Bar and Bench)      

BCI sends show cause notice to DSK Legal for promotional advertisement featuring Rahul Bose; Seeks explanation within 10 days and removal of ad VIEW HERE ⤡ (As reported on 21st March, 2025 ©SCCOnline)      

Bar Council of India issues notice to DSK Legal over advertisement featuring celebrity VIEW HERE ⤡ (As reported on 24th March, 2025 ©Asian Legal Business)      

7. Broader Legal Context

The above situation underscores calls for decriminalization of defamation in India. Defamation in India, governed by Sections 499 and 500 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), is rooted in colonial-era laws like the 1275 Statute of Westminster, which was originally aimed at preventing public disorder. However, the historical justification for criminalizing defamation is outdated in today’s 24/7 media landscape, where free speech, protected under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution, often clashes with these provisions. Critics argue that criminal defamation, which can lead to up to two years’ imprisonment, is disproportionate and misused to silence dissent, particularly by politicians and corporations. Unlike other crimes, it rarely requires proof of mens rea (intent), undermining legal standards. International norms, including those set by the European Court of Human Rights and the UN Human Rights Committee, advocate for limiting defamation to civil remedies, reserving criminal penalties for extreme cases like hate speech. Efforts to decriminalize defamation, such as a 2014 Law Commission of India consultation and a proposed 2023 bill by MP Raghav Chadha, have faced resistance, with the Supreme Court upholding the law’s constitutionality in 2016. Decriminalization would align India with global standards, prioritizing civil remedies to balance reputation and free expression. Only then would Indian polity be worthy of being called the “mother of democracies”!

Furthermore, the legal intimidation of economically vulnerable groups is inconsistent with India’s obligations of socio-economic equity (Ref. Directive Principles of State Policy, Indian Constitution) under international human rights law.

SOURCES:

A Case for India Decriminalising Defamation VIEW HERE ⤡ (As reported on 7th April, 2023 ©The New Indian Express)
State of Criminal Defamation VIEW HERE ⤡ (As reported on 14th April, 2015 ©The Hindu)

Other Articles on the DSK Legal-DHFL Victim (David vs. Goliath?) Fight:

• ATTACK AND COUNTER-ATTACK: A LETTER TO PCHFL’S LEGAL TEAM⤡
• ĀHLĀDA OR JOUISSANCE DUE TO LEGAL INTIMIDATION: FOLLOW-UP LETTER TO THE PCHFL’S LEGAL TEAM⤡
• REQUESTING FOR PROVIDING T.A. AND GOOD HOSPITALITY FOR ATTENDING COURT PROCEEDINGS: A LETTER TO PIRAMAL’S LEGAL TEAM ⤡
• GET WELL SOON: GREETINGS TO MR. PIRAMAL, DHFL-COC, DSK LEGAL AND THE BJP⤡