Skip to content

Mumbai, 25th January, 2017: Reliance Anil Dhirubhai Ambani Group (R-ADAG) was caught with its hands in the proverbial cookie jar, and that too by the Supreme Court! R-ADAG tried to twist the terms of its Power Purchase Agreement with seven states, and make a profit of well over Rs 1,000/- crore by making the states count one day as one year (31st March 2013 is the previous financial year, and 1st April 2013 is the next financial year. Get it?) And moreover, when All Indian Power Engineers' Federation (AIPEF) blew the whistle and prevented it, R-ADAG tried to sue AIPEF's office-bearers for damages of Rs 1,000 crore! Ulta chor kitwal ko dante!

The true significance of Supreme Court’s 8th December 2016 judgment on Reliance's Sasan Ultra Mega Power Project (UMPP) Commercial Operation Date (COD) has gone unreported. Mainstream media has avoided reporting important thing, namely:

1) By exploiting a loophole in the Power Purchase Agreements (PPA) signed with seven states of India, Reliance Power wanted to hugely overcharge them. Madhya Pradesh, where the power project is located, would have had to pay over Rs 400 crore extra to Sasan Power Ltd. based on their false claim that Unit 3 of the UMPP started commercial operations on March 31, 2013. (Counting interest costs, the impact on MP would be around Rs 450 crore.) The PPA specifies that power is to be supplied @70 paise per unit for the first two years, and hiked up to Rs 1.31 per unit from the third year. But, if Reliance Power’s claim of March 31, 2013 as the commercial operations date (COD) were to be accepted by the seven power-purchasing states, then the first year of power purchase would be only one day long, i.e. starting on 31st March, 2013 and ending on April 1, 2013. Such a stand would enable Sasan to start charging the higher power tariff of Rs 1.31 per unit from April 1, 2014, instead of April 1, 2015. This would have resulted in a wrongful gain of Rs 1050 crore to Sasan Power Ltd, coming out of the pocket of the Indian power consumer and taxpayer.

2) Moreover, were such a claim to be accepted, it would have also resulted in incalculable loss to the nation in terms of power-generation, as it would have removed all the deadlines and left Sasan Power Ltd. under no pressure to fully operationalize Unit 3 in a time-bound manner. On 31st March 2013, Unit 3 was functioning at a mere 17% of demand. The unit became fully operational and achieved the capacity to fulfill 95% demand only in August 2013. If 31st March were considered the start of the COD by waiving this condition, it is possible and even likely that the date on which 95% demand capacity was achieved would have been pushed back even further. The heart of the PPA is the condition that Unit 3 had to be functioning at over 95% of demand, for the Commercial Operation Date to commence. By seeking to subvert the heart of the contract, R-ADAG betrayed its profiteering tendencies, and its willingness to sacrifice the safety and well-being of the national grid.

3) Sasan Power would have got away with looting India, were it not for the persistent efforts of All Indian Power Engineers Federation (AIPEF), spearheaded by its chief patron Er. Padamjit Singh of Delhi and Er. Shailendra Dubey of Lucknow.  It is heartening to see the activist spirit with which this professional body defended the national interest before the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission and its Appellate Tribunal, and before the higher judiciary.

4) Sasan Power Limited tried to misuse Bombay High Court as a forum to intimidate AIPEF to prevent it from pursuing the matter before appropriate forums, including higher judiciary. It malafidely tried to get an injunction from Bombay High Court in August 2016 for muzzling and stalling AIPEF, and claiming damages of Rs 1,000/- crore, although the same matter was already reaching Supreme Court in Appeal.

5) There is significance in the fact that prominent Congress leaders Kapil Sibal and P Chidambaram, in their capacity as senior advocates, attempted to defend the indefensible. This helps to remind the public that Anil Ambani has friends on both sides of the political fence. No matter who wins elections – BJP or Congress – big money wins every time. The Congress camp may shout from rooftops that Prime Minister Narendra Modi is protecting the business interests of the “two brothers”, but one must bear in mind that Congress leaders also have their interests at heart.

ISSUED IN PUBLIC INTEREST BY
Krishnaraj Rao
9821588114
krish.kkphoto@gmail.com

Posted in Public Interest by
Sulaiman Bhimani
9323642081
sulaimanbhimani11@gmail.com 

10

This is just speculation, but drastic changes in the BJP's propaganda seem to indicate that a rollback of demonetisation may happen.

We began with demonetisation being Modi's special, secret project. The BJP and its formidable social media machinery has consistently defended demonetisation in the face of increasingly grave reports of losses and worse, nationwide. Even Modi supporters who are fully aware that the demonetisation is a disaster and little else seem committed to going down with heads held high no matter the cost to themselves or others.

However, unlike the supporters conditioned to sacrifice all for the greater good, there are increasing signs that the BJP would like survival for itself and Modi. There are subtle signs that Modi is increasingly being distanced from the mess and the missing RBI governor, Urjit Patel has manifested out of nowhere as well.

Reading the writing on the wall, I think demonetisation has failed and will soon be rolled back.

Here are the things I noticed.

  • Starting from last week, almost all talk of black money and terror funding and what not died down and the new focus is on a cashless economy - not so surprising since people have to survive the cashless situation created by Modi and given that there are no arrangements for required within a short time, the only alternative is to minimize damage. What likely was expected to be a bonanza for Fintech companies has now turned into the government's lifeline.
  • While the BJP may dismiss losses and deaths suffered by the common man, there are increasing signs (and they were there all through - no idea why BJP didn't expect them) that business losses will be staggering. The last week has brought news of massive layoffs, flight of foreign money and entire fortunes wiped out in the stock market. This sort of pain registers on a party that has basically floated to power on money from such very sources.
  • SBI head Arundhati Bhattacharya (also being considered for a nomination to the World Bank) has been the weather cock on the demonetisation all through to the point where a lot of ignorant citizens probably thought SBI handles national currency and RBI just prints it or something. Statements endorsing the demonetisation, even as the Banker's Association was talking of 11 employees dead in 10 days of work. Parroting the government line on plenty of cash being available even as banks and ATMs ran empty on a daily basis in the organization she heads. Today she demanded that banks should be compensated for the losses they suffered.... because of *cough* "RBI's move".
  • Increasingly, extremely "planted" news points to the RBI and Finance Ministry for the demonetisation. A notable example being (note the language emphasized - this is classic BJP propaganda):
    • Prime Minister Narendra Modi is working “more than ten hours a day” just on ensuring that the 8 November money measures announced by him ensure a smooth landing for the economy rather than turbulence. This despite the fact that the plan actually owed its origin to the Reserve Bank of India and the Ministry of Finance, who persuaded the PM to go forward with an idea which will affect (and has affected) over a billion citizens of this country. Prime Minister Modi showed moral courage in coming forward and accepting ownership of the currency swap scheme announced on 8 November, and has since then publicly backed every twist and turn in that policy by the monetary and fiscal authorities. Senior officials say “Prime Minister Modi was presented with the issue in such a way that turning down the scheme was out of the question”. Through the plan, concerned officials wished to “shield those in high positions in banks across the country from the consequences of the crony-oriented lending that they had been doing, specially since 2006”, the year when Narasimha Rao’s liberalisation policy was fully substituted by the UPA into a faux Nehruvian economic policy that combined Fabian socialism with Wall Street ways. “Officials argued that a windfall of up to Rs 550,000 crore would flow to the banks through the enforced extinguishing of currency notes issued by the RBI, and that this would recapitalise several banks that were in effect bankrupt, thereby allowing them to lend again”. The Prime Minister was assured that “steps would be taken to ensure that the common man suffered minimal discomfort” and that “the informal economy would accelerate its absorption into the formal without jobs being affected”...

      Needless to say, this is the line that will now be taken by the party. Such stories don't reach journalists via anonymous "senior officials" and "sources"by coincidence. So the strategy seems to be to downplay the fact that Modi announced the demonetisation and to present it as something he was reluctant to do but compelled by other forces covering up Congress actions. He himself is hardworking and has citizen interests in mind. Etc. This is a big gamble to play if he people pointed out as real culprits aren't seen to suffer some consequence. Thus, I think Jaitley and Urjit Patel are now the scapegoats. In completely unrelated news, around the same time these developments happened, there was a photo of Amit Shah holding a goat, which I found totally hilarious.

This is a development. RBI is increasingly blamed for the demonetisation and any overflow perhaps to hit Jaitley while Modi is the great humanitarian who reluctantly was compelled to announce it and is now shouldering the responsibility, etc.

This wouldn't happen if the BJP were planning to go through with the demonetisation - it would want to be seen in solidarity with RBI to instill confidence in the success of the demonetisation. Also would be too much risk of the RBI saying inconvenient things that could still nail Modi if demonetisation stress continued.

So my guess is Urjit Patel is the fall guy, Jaitley will be thrown under the bus in some minor way if that is not enough (many say he is too big to be a fall guy), Modi will go scot free after rolling back the demonetisation to save country from these two.

8

As soon as the demonetisation of Rs.500 and Rs.1000 notes was announced, I had said that it was a forced and public funded "bailout" of banks. This article examines news reports from the last year and explains how I arrived at the conclusion.

Please note: I am not an economist or banker or accountant or even particularly good with money or calculations. As a result, almost all the conclusions in this article are actually quoted from news reports and analysis. I have merely strung them together. I could still be wrong, feel free to argue in the comments.

As soon as the demonetisation of Rs.500 and Rs.1000 notes was announced, I had said that it was a forced and public funded "bailout" of banks. This is a phenomenon polite people call recapitalization unless the government literally dumps money into banks.

This view has not changed. But many are skeptical, saying that excessive money with banks is not good for them as they will have to lend it out in order to earn from it. That is true, and they will have to lower interests and give out more loans and such. However, to those following the news, I'm simply presenting various things that happened in the year before the demonetisation. Particularly with regard to the Non Performing Assets - NPAs. Too many NPAs and the banks won't be able to function. On the other hand... pay attention here: The bank with the largest number of NPAs - State Bank of India - doesn't seem to be in as much crisis as several others - say... Indian Overseas Bank - guess why? Because with that size come plenty of other performing assets as well as deposits keeping the show going.

For the record, it isn't the first time that the government has forced the country into actions that end up putting money in banks. The Jan Dhan Yojana was the first. It doesn't seem to have yielded much. Then came the DBTL, where in spite of the Supreme Court saying that citizens must not be deprived of their rights because of not having an Aadhaar, a convoluted scheme was imposed on them where the gas subsidies provided for the state would be provided as deposits into their bank accounts as opposed to people paying less for gas while buying it. Small amounts at a time, but it would end up totaling to a good amount of money belonging to citizens getting deposited into the banks by the government. People were free to withdraw it, but at least some of it would hopefully remain as deposited, just like some Jan Dhan accounts would indeed see use even if most remained empty. But these are old stories.

The NPAs of banks had increased to an alarming level by the end of the December quarter, last year. Then governor of RBI, Raghuram Rajan had been on the case of banks for NPAs for a while, and took a firm view of the matter, giving the banks until March 2017 to deal with their NPAs. Banks were to start flagging and resolving NPAs and restructured loans and by March, skeletons were tumbling out of banking closets and it was clear that the banks had been underplaying NPAs in order to show better results to investors (presumably). With the pressure on from the RBI, the banks started turning the heat on defaulters. It is no secret that it is banks with large corporate loans struggling the worst with NPAs, and I can only speculate that people who knew people who knew people had a lot of money at stake. To quote from the linked article:

RBI had conducted an asset quality review of Indian banks and found many accounts that were showing stress were required to be classified as non-performing. But since banks were not classifying those accounts as NPA, the banking regulator directed lenders to classify them as sub-standard and provide accordingly. Sub-standard assets attract 15-20 per cent provisioning as compared to five per cent provisioning requirement in standard assets.

RBI had asked the banks to complete the exercise of classifying assets as NPA in the third and fourth quarter.

As a result, many banks including the likes of Bank of Baroda, IDBI Bank, Bank of India suffered record losses in the Oct-Dec quarter. Since the remaining accounts (those which were not classified as NPA in Q3), need to be classified as NPA in Q4, losses could her mount. Bankers said this has prompted the banks to call the management of the defaulting companies and ask them to make payments, which will help the lenders avoid further losses.

Incidentally, this is around the time when Narendra Modi claims that planning for demonetisation started (although there doesn't seem to be much evidence of planning going by the manner in which it has been carried out).

Soon after this began noises of Raghuram Rajan not continuing as the governor of RBI after his tenure was complete. What happened behind scenes is anyone's guess and rumors and claims out in public range from Raghuram Rajan not wanting to continue to the government not wanting him to continue. Regardless, he was succeeded by Urjit Patel, who headed GSPC in Modi's Gujarat when GSPC took loans to the tune of 20,000 crore and basically had nothing to show for them, with no gas ever being produced. His closeness to Ambani (who profited majorly from the GSPC mess) as well as Jignesh Patel is well known. So, given Modi's preference for complete incompetence in area where competence is expected being a requisite for appointments, who better than Urjit Patel to head RBI while it was overseeing banks reducing NPAs?

Unlike Raghuram Rajan's approach, where the RBI would support banks in dealing with bad loans, Urjit Patel was of the view that "bad banks" take over the debt. It is unclear what happened of that approach or whether and what efforts continued toward NPAs, but they continued to rise. Attempts by Modi (and one wonders why Modi) to get Indian state owned firms to take over floundering defaulting companies (and their debt) failed a month before demonetisation was declared by Modi. To quote from the link:

India's government is pushing state-owned steel, power and shipping firms to take over assets of private companies that have defaulted on loans, but faces resistance from them, leaving it scrambling to clear a $135 billion pile of stressed loans from banks' books.

[...]

Last month, steel ministry officials met with Modi to outline measures to revive a sector reeling under bad loans and cheap Chinese imports. Days later, in a renewed push, Finance Minister Arun Jaitley met with top lenders, including State Bank of India (SBI.NS) and ICICI Bank (ICBK.NS), steel and shipping ministry officials and some state-owned companies.

He gave the state-owned firms a list of 23 troubled steel, power and shipping companies with bad loans totaling $14.5 billion, according to government officials and minutes of the meeting seen by Reuters.

The state-owned firms were "encouraged" to buy at least one asset and take a minority stake in a company on the list.

The banks needed lots of money and fast, or many of them being Public Sector Banks with the government owning more than half of them, it would stress the government for funds. One wonders what was wrong with turning the screws on NPAs harder. The banks needed money and fast.

How could this be achieved? Well, how about if all the people in India put most of the money they had into banks and left most of it there?

What followed, with demonetisation seems to be a harebrained scheme to get most of the cash with the country into banks. This is how not only do the banks not have enough cash planned and are not even in a position to provide enough cash in the near future, we have increasing noises about "cashless" transactions being an intent behind the demonetisation. So the money gets transferred from account to account, but remains with the banks instead of returning to the people with limits withdrawn and notes available again.

Then with demonetisation with banks bloated with funds, some of the staggering NPAs were "written off" to reduce their burden and free the money the banks would have to provision for the bad loans. Any taxes the government got would be a bonus (but given the expenses and waivers of demonetisation, I doubt these were the real motive).

Added feedback from someone who knows more about money than me: While the increased deposits will allow the banks to lend more, earn more, lower interest rates, etc, the interest earned by the banks and taxes to the government will no doubt be useful toward recapitalizing the banks. As will various confiscations of deposits be.

So now the thoughtless demonetisation with it unending new rules being pulled out of hats has happened. Banks have a different problem. Too much cash. And the methods to deal with it won't necessarily result in big profits for them. What they will do to existing loans with the economy and thus borrowers stressed far worse is anyone's guess.

Finally, how do I know that this is really a bank bailout and not a coincidence? Well, now that things are going south with the demonetisation, the usual process of protecting Modi from the consequences of his own action has already begun. From being "Freedom at Midnight" - Modi's project planned meticulously and in complete and necessary secrecy for 10 months, the story now is that the RBI and Finance Ministry presented the demonetisation plan to Modi in a manner that "turning down the scheme was out of the question". And guess why (emphasis mine):

Prime Minister Narendra Modi is working “more than ten hours a day” just on ensuring that the 8 November money measures announced by him ensure a smooth landing for the economy rather than turbulence. This despite the fact that the plan actually owed its origin to the Reserve Bank of India and the Ministry of Finance, who persuaded the PM to go forward with an idea which will affect (and has affected) over a billion citizens of this country. Prime Minister Modi showed moral courage in coming forward and accepting ownership of the currency swap scheme announced on 8 November, and has since then publicly backed every twist and turn in that policy by the monetary and fiscal authorities. Senior officials say “Prime Minister Modi was presented with the issue in such a way that turning down the scheme was out of the question”. Through the plan, concerned officials wished to “shield those in high positions in banks across the country from the consequences of the crony-oriented lending that they had been doing, specially since 2006”, the year when Narasimha Rao’s liberalisation policy was fully substituted by the UPA into a faux Nehruvian economic policy that combined Fabian socialism with Wall Street ways. “Officials argued that a windfall of up to Rs 550,000 crore would flow to the banks through the enforced extinguishing of currency notes issued by the RBI, and that this would recapitalise several banks that were in effect bankrupt, thereby allowing them to lend again”. The Prime Minister was assured that “steps would be taken to ensure that the common man suffered minimal discomfort” and that “the informal economy would accelerate its absorption into the formal without jobs being affected”. It needs to be mentioned that it is the formal sector that is responsible for not repaying bank loans of a value crossing Rs 750,000 crore, which will be several times the value of tax evasion by the informal sector. NPAs are being written off by banks at an accelerating pace over the past six years, with still more businesses declaring themselves unviable by the month.

I rest my case.

2

Prime Minister Narendra Modi tweeted from his personal account, a request asking people to vote about the impact of demonetisation on his app. The link provided leads to his personal website page for downloading the app.

narendra-modi-survey

The profile of the app on the google store however describes it as the "Official app of Prime Minister of India, Narendra Modi" (screenshot kindly provided by Shamim Chowdhury)

official-app-pm-modi

The survey in question was an extremely poorly designed one, with a biased sample of smartphone users who are likelier than the rest of the country to be able to conduct cashless transactions and thus have been least impacted by demonetisation. Additionally, the userbase of this application is majorly fans of Modi and framing of questions that does not cover views of dissent - that the demonetisation has proved harmful to people or that it was a bad idea. The results of the survey in question display an overwhelming support for demonetisation.

A pliant media does not appear to be asking enough questions about manipulated data being used as a cover up about impact of such a drastic action that is leading to increased loss of life, livelihoods and economic well being by the day.

However an unverified RTI response indicates that this is not an official app developed for the Prime Minister of India as its profile claims.

modi-app-rti-response

The application profile itself shows the owner as Narendra Modi (and not Government of India - as is the case in the other official applications) and the developer information is:

Developer

This is a blatant attempt to manipulate the minds of Indian citizens into believing that their distress is isolated and that the vast majority of Indians actually are exceedingly pleased with the demonetisation. A perception management exercise that would discourage dissent through misinforming the masses who would believe it to be a properly conducted survey representative of the Indian population at large.

Additionally, the quality of the app is questionable. We have, in the past found vulnerabilities in the app that revealed private information about users installing it and had a very difficult time reporting them and getting them fixed with no clear developer or maintainer information provided that responds to vulnerability reports.

The misleading description of the application must be corrected. News media must disclose that the results of the survey represent a very specific profile of users who are likely to be less than 3% of the population of the country.

It is even more shameful that the Prime Minister of the country, after initiating an exercise invalidating most of its currency had skipped off to Japan where he joked about the unfolding plight of Indians, then he has been addressing public rallies and televised addresses to the nation on a routine basis. However he has not seen fit to address his responsibility as the elected leader of the country by being present in the Parliament to be accountable for the increasingly apparent adverse effects of his allegedly well planned action threatening lives, economy and the well being of citizens nationwide.

The Prime Minister does his office great dishonor.

2

10th September, 2016, Cuttack: One is puzzled by the accounting treatment for Justice Indrajit Mahanty's Rs 2.5 crore working-capital loan for his hotel, The Triple C. Lakhs of rupees are withdrawn and repaid every month in two SBI loan accounts in the name of "Justice Indrajit Mahanty" and strangely, not in the name of Latest Generation Entertainment Pvt. Ltd., the company that has leased the hotel from him. As a High Court judge, Justice I. Mahanty gets a monthly salary of Rs. 1.35 lakhs, and therefore is liable to pay Income Tax. But repayment of principal plus interest could reduce or eliminate his taxable income. Suppose his tax returns are dodgy, can Income Tax authorities summon his lordship personally for questioning u/s 131 of Income Tax Act, and compel production of his lordship's books of account?

We asked Mr Binoy Gupta, a retired Chief Commissioner of Income Tax (CCA), who holds a Ph.D. in Law. His reply was: "There are no exemptions in any law for any Supreme Court or High Court Judges from any judicial or quasi judicial proceedings. Our department has taken action under the Income Tax Act against them."

We requested Mr Gupta for case studies (with or without the names of the judges) to substantiate his claim of having taken action against judges. His response was: "I can not give any instances today. But I stand by my statement that Judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts have no special status so far the applicability of Income Tax Laws are concerned."

And then Mr Gupta added that bringing a judge to justice is a tough job. He wrote: "If any govt. servant engages himself in business, his department can and does take action. But the procedure for taking action against Judges is far too complex... impeachment which is extremely difficult."

Given the absence of case studies and other details of judges being held accountable by Income Tax authorities, our gut feeling is: IT authorities will never dare to summon his lordship, because (a) they would be in awe of a high court judge, and (b) because the high court has superior jurisdiction over the Income Tax department, and not vice versa. Even if judges do not enjoy de jure immunity from quasi-judicial and administrative authorities, they enjoy de facto immunity. No government official will risk rubbing a high court judge the wrong way by questioning him, even if the law permits him to do so!

Justice Indrajit Mahanty may or may not have broken any laws, but he is definitely in breach of the code of ethics on multiple counts. Must we all act like Gandhi's three monkeys and remain silent?

In return for such unquestioned authority and immunity, judges are expected to keep their affairs transparent and straightforward, by abstaining from business activities. Their income should ideally consist of their salaries, and interest on fixed deposits etc. -- nothing more complicated than that. To quote YK Sabharwal, former Chief Justice of India, who spoke on the Judicial Canon of Ethics, "Almost every public servant is governed by certain basic Code of Conduct which includes expectation that he shall maintain absolute integrity... manage his financial affairs in such a manner that he is always free from indebtedness, and not involve himself in transactions relating to property with persons having official dealings with him." Please note that seeking building permissions, bank loans, hotel licenses, etc. etc. are all transactions with the government, administration and public sector, who all have "official dealings" with a high court judge in his judge-like capacity. Such transactions adulterate the purity of Justice Indrajit Mahanty's judgment.

According to the Restatement of Values of Judicial Life (adopted by Full Bench of Supreme Court on7th May, 1997), "A Judge should not engage directly or indirectly in trade or business, either by himself or in association with any other person. 

And according to the Bangalore Principles of Judicial Conduct, 2002, "A judge shall not only be free from inappropriate connections with, and influence by, the executive and legislative branches of government, but must also appear to a reasonable observer to be free therefrom."

Read all these documents on judicial ethics and in that context, understand the significance of Justice I Mahanty's actions. Justice Indrajit Mahanty may or may not have broken any laws, but he is definitely in breach of ethics on multiple counts.

So, must we all remain silent like Gandhiji's three monkeys? Must we all adopt a policy of See-no-evil, hear-no-evil, speak-no-evil when it comes to judges? Must the adulteration of our judicial services be allowed to continue under cover of a conspiracy of silence?

ISSUED IN PUBLIC INTEREST BY
Krishnaraj Rao
9821588114
krish.kkphoto@gmail.com

Posted By 
Sulaiman Bhimani 
9323642081 
sulaimanbhimani11@gmail.com