Editor’s Pick

Hindenburg Alleges SEBI Chief, Spouse Held Stake in Offshore Funds ‘Linked to Adani Group’

The shortseller also accuses Madhabi Puri Buch of possible concealment of income through consulting as well as potentially benefitting her husband’s employer-firm through endorsements of new asset class. This, says Hindenburg, casts a cloud on SEBI’s ability to be “objective arbiter in Adani matter.”

New Delhi: In explosive new revelations, US-based short seller Hindenburg Research – whose report on the Adani group last year alleged price rigging of company shares – has accused Securities and Exchange Bureau of India (SEBI) chief Madhabi Buch and her husband of having held “stakes in both the obscure offshore funds used in the Adani money siphoning scandal,” citing “whistleblower documents”.

The Hindenburg Report in 2023 triggered a series of investigations into alleged irregularities by the Adani group, but was marked by little or no visible regulatory action in India. In its latest release, Hindenburg makes other serious allegations about SEBI chairperson Buch and husband Dhaval Buch potentially personally benefitting from certain statements made by her in her capacity as chairperson of India’s stock market regulator. It also says that she may have not disclosed the total income she receives from ‘consulting’ via her ownership of Agora Consulting and the discrepancy could be as much as “4.4 times” her salary as SEBI chief.

Hindenburg alleges that “despite the existence of thousands of mainstream, reputable onshore Indian mutual fund products, an industry she now is responsible for regulating, documents in its possession show Madhabi Buch and her husband “had stakes in a multi-layered offshore fund structure with minuscule assets, traversing known high-risk jurisdictions, overseen by a company with reported ties to the Wirecard scandal, in the same entity run by an Adani director and significantly used by Vinod Adani in the alleged Adani cash siphoning scandal.”

As per the documents cited by Hindenburg, “Madhabi Buch and her husband Dhaval Buch first appear to have opened their account with IPE Plus Fund 1 on June 5, 2015 in Singapore.” These offshore Bermuda and Mauritius funds, says Hindenburg, were “found in the same complex nested structure, used by Vinod Adani”. Two weeks prior to her appointment as SEBI chief, says the report, “Madhabi’s husband, Dhaval Buch, wrote to Mauritius fund administrator Trident Trust, according to documents we received from a whistleblower. The email was regarding his and his wife’s investment in the Global Dynamic Opportunities Fund (“GDOF”).” In his communication, Dhaval Buch requested to “be the sole person authorised to operate the Accounts.”

The Supreme Court Expert Committee Report of May 6, 2023 had said that SEBI had “drawn a blank” in its investigations into who funded Adani’s offshore shareholders. Hindenburg says it finds it “unsurprising that SEBI was reluctant to follow a trail that may have led to its own chairperson.”

The Adani Group has denied all allegations levelled by the short-seller, though the role of Gautam Adani – seen to be personally close to Narendra Modi since his days as the chief minister of Gujarat and the BJP – became a political hot potato and was a major election issue.

In its January 2023 report, Hindenburg claimed it had identified, among other funds, “two Mauritius entities called EM Resurgent Fund and Emerging India Focus Funds. Both entities were disclosed as related parties of India Infoline (now called 360 One) and overseen by its employees, per its annual reports.[5] [Pg. 34]” The allegation according to “the trading patterns [of these funds]” was that “that the stock parking entities and the suspicious offshore entities may have artificially inflated the volume and/or price of some Adani listed companies.”

Hindenburg says its findings were buttressed by an August 2023 investigation by the Financial Times, which found a “secret paper trail” at EM Resurgent and Emerging India Focus Funds. This raised questions on whether Adani had used business associates as “front men” to “bypass rules for Indian companies that prevent share price manipulation.”

SEBI has yet to take any action against these funds. On June 27, 2024, SEBI sent Hindenburg a ‘show cause’ notice. SEBI said the disclosure around Hindenburg’s short position “was deficient.” It termed Hindenburg as “reckless” for quoting a broker who had been banned for saying how SEBI was “fully aware that firms like Adani used complex offshore entities to flout rules, and that the regulator participated in the schemes.”

From April 2017 to March 2022, Hindenburg alleges, “when Madhabi Buch was a whole time member and chairperson at SEBI, she had a 100% interest in an offshore Singaporean consulting firm, called Agora Partners” and on March 16, 2022, “two weeks after her appointment as SEBI chairperson, she quietly transferred the shares to her husband”.

Hindenburg also goes on to allege that Madhabi Buch currently has a 99% stake in an Indian consulting business called Agora Advisory, where her husband is a director and that in 2022, this company reported revenue of $ 261,000 from consulting, which it says is “4.4 times her disclosed salary at SEBI”.

Dhaval Buch and Blackstone

Dhaval Buch being appointed as Advisor, Blackstone during Madhabi Buch’s tenure as whole time member of SEBI has been questioned by Hindenburg, alleging that her publicly saying she supports REITS – “a naescent asset class” – resulted in significant benefits for Blackstone. Blackstone sponsored Mindspace and Nexus Select Trust, India’s second and fourth REIT respectively, to receive SEBI approval to raise money, going for an initial public offering or an IPO.

Hindenburg says there is a question whether this can be characterised as a “conflict” of interest or capture. But it says, “either way, we do not think SEBI can be trusted as an objective arbiter in the Adani matter. We think our findings raise questions that merit further investigation. We welcome additional transparency.”

The Wire has sent a questionnaire to Madhabi Buch on Hindenburg’s latest allegations. This story will be updated when she responds.

Responding to the Hindenburg Report, the Adani Group said they “completely reject these allegations” calling it “baseless”.

“It is reiterated that our overseas holding structure is fully transparent, with all relevant details disclosed regularly in numerous public documents. Furthermore, Anil Ahuja was a nominee director of 3i investment fund in Adani Power (2007-2008) and, later, a director of Adani Enterprises until 2017,” the spokesperson of the Adani Group said in a statement.

“The Adani Group has absolutely no commercial relationship with the individuals or matters mentioned in this calculated deliberate effort to malign our standing. We remain steadfastly committed to transparency and compliance with all legal and regulatory requirements,” the spokesperson added.

Here’s the full statement:

Lessons of Political Arrogance from Dhaka Need to be Heeded in New Delhi

It is the historic conceit of every autocrat to think they would be able to bring unprecedented prosperity and peace in their land if only they shut down the nagging voices from civil society and the carping critics in the Opposition. Sheikh Hasina is not the first and will not be the last ruler to fall in this illusional trap.

It could just be a coincidence. Barely 24 hours before Bangladeshi Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina was compelled to flee Dhaka, India’s home minister was making a statement of Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s inescapable durability beyond 2029. Just as Sheikh Hasina had come to entertain notions of indispensability, the prime minister’s right-hand man appears to have convinced himself – and probably his boss – that India is doomed without Modi at the helm.

On Sunday, Amit Shah was telling an audience in Chandigarh: “The Opposition may try and make as much noise as it wants to. Let me make it clear that in 2029, it is again PM Modi who is coming to power.” Such undiluted arrogance. Such a sense of entitlement.

Of course, the Union Home Minister’s primary purpose to signal to all the democratic and constitutional stake-holders not to take too seriously the rebuff the electorate has administered to the Modi regime in the Lok Sabha elections two months ago. Of course, with an invigorated Opposition making its presence felt in Parliament, the Modi coterie has every reason to feel worried that many in the judiciary and bureaucracy may not be all that enthusiastic about implementing their agenda of vengeance. Of course, the Modi establishment cannot be unaware that murmurs of unease and defiance within the BJP, starting from Lucknow, are gathering a critical mass.

Sheikh Hasina was also recently “elected” under an arrangement that lacked credibility. The opposition parties had boycotted the poll process. There was no pretence of any free and fair vote. In our own country, there were many voices who felt that given the Modi regime’s stranglehold over the Election Commission, the anti-BJP parties should stay away contesting the 2024 Lok Sabha poll. It was the Supreme Court’s verdict on electoral bonds that persuaded the cynics to have some faith in the overall constitutional scheme of things. Even then, the Election Commission of India failed to earn the unqualified respect of all.

And, this precisely is the obligation of the Opposition – to put on notice every stake-holder, from the President of India to the Chief Justice to the Speaker of the Lok Sabha to the Chairman of the Rajya Sabha to every governor, that if democratic voices of dissent are not allowed to be raised, then the only noise that prevails is the crowd in the street. What happened in Dhaka should sober up the Modi-Shah groupies.

In an interview to the Indian Express (August 5, 2024) Nobel laureate Muhammad Yunus had observed of the Sheikh Hasina government: “The government is a lie-making factory, continuously lying and lying and lying, and they just start believing in their own lies.” A familiar strain in every elected autocracy.

A similar weakness has marked the Modi government’s approach to fact and figures. It rejects all international reports and opinions; it even dismisses international standards and yardsticks of democratic health. Civil society and its critiques are dismissed as the handiwork of those who want to create instability and/or bring a bad name to Mother India. Refusing to heed the voters’ admonitory slap across their face, Modi’s commissars are now trying to throttle all independent voices in digital platforms. It can only be hoped that the Modi government’s overreach will have to pass the test of judicial scrutiny.

The past ten years have made it abundantly clear that the Narendra Modi project has had no answers to the problems and complexities of national governance. Apart from self- praise and self-promotion, Modi’s decade long tenure in government is one of inefficiency, insensitivity and incapacity because it was premised on the fallacious and arrogant assumption that one honest, incorruptible helmsman could fix the “broken” system.

After 10 years India remains as, if not more, corrupt a place it was before 2014; in 10 years, it has become more unfair, more unequal and more undemocratic a place. In Bangladesh, every good impulse, every healthy tradition, every admirable protocol, every vital institution had been suborned in the interest of the glory and power of one individual. We have come very close to flirting with the Bangladesh model. The self-corruption of the establishment has eaten into the Modi sarkar’s pretensions.

The Bangladesh events make it imperative to remind ourselves that irrespective of whatever Home Minister Amit Shah asserts, democracies do not elect kings or emperors. Democracies choose prime ministers and presidents, all drawing legitimacy and authority from the Constitution. A democratic government is an accountable government. The BJP and RSS will make a terrible mistake if they think that they can get away with misusing constitutional processes to suborn institutional arrangements anchored in democratic accountability.

No one can be confident that the Amit Shahs and the JP Naddas of our world, who traffic in political arrogance, have the wisdom and sagacity to draw appropriate lessons from Sheikh Hasina’s flawed model of personal rule. But one can be confident that India’s constitutional institutions will regain their vitality and assert themselves against the Modi regime’s uncured waywardness. The Dhaka denouement need not be replicated in New Delhi.

How M.K. Stalin’s Brand of Ideological Politics Sunk the BJP in Tamil Nadu

The DMK strongly opposed the BJP’s policies, projecting them as proponents of authoritarianism and the Hindutva ideology, a stance that was deeply rooted in the historical and ideological foundations of the secular Dravidian movement.

In the 2024 Lok Sabha elections, the INDIA alliance achieved a clean sweep in Tamil Nadu and neighbouring Puducherry, winning all 40 parliamentary seats.

The M.K. Stalin-led Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) formed the main plank of the win, winning 22 Lok Sabha seats and successfully supporting its alliance partners including Congress in other constituencies, which stopped the BJP from opening its account in the state.

The decisive victory in Tamil Nadu highlights a stark contrast with the YSR Congress’s defeat in Andhra Pradesh and the Biju Janata Dal (BJD) in Odisha despite extensive social welfare initiatives. The contrasting fortunes of these parties offer critical insights into effective political strategy and coalition building.

Illustration: Pariplab Chakraborty

Coalition Building: Inclusivity and Ideological Coherence

One of the primary drivers of DMK’s success was its dedication to nurturing and sustaining a robust and ideologically coherent coalition. Since the 2019 Lok Sabha elections, MK Stalin has diligently built and maintained the Social Progressive Alliance, which later became part of the INDIA.

This coalition includes a diverse array of parties including the Indian National Congress, Viduthalai Chiruthaigal Katchi, CPI, CPM, and the Indian Union Muslim League, alongside various social organizations and micro-regional parties – each representing different segments of Tamil Nadu’s complex socio-political landscape.

This inclusive approach ensured a broad base of support across different social and political spectra and representation to multiple communities, creating a formidable united front against the BJP. Unlike Jaganmohan Reddy or Naveen Patnaik, who relied heavily on their personal charisma and extensive social welfare schemes, Tamil Nadu Chief Minister Stalin’s approach focused on building a resilient alliance grounded in shared opposition to the BJP’s policies.

While inclusivity ensured a broad base of support, ideological coherence provided the alliance with a clear and unified purpose. The DMK strongly opposed the BJP’s policies, projecting them as proponents of authoritarianism and the Hindutva ideology. This stance was not merely oppositional but deeply rooted in the historical and ideological foundations of the Dravidian movement, which advocates for dignity, social justice, secularism, and state autonomy.

The communication of a sincere opposition, resonated deeply with the committed party cadre and the voters. The able management of the coalition dynamics and internal cohesion, which went beyond just seat sharing, helped the opposition present a united front against the BJP. For instance, the positive coverage of cadre cooperation across party lines within the coalition during the election campaign indicates consistent messaging from the leadership down to the hyper-local levels.

Ideological Clarity and Consistent Messaging

A key lesson from Tamil Nadu’s electoral success is the importance of ideological clarity and consistent messaging. MK Stalin and the DMK made it a priority to communicate their opposition to the BJP’s Hindutva ideology at every level. This involved not just high-profile leaders, but also district secretaries and local party structures, ensuring that the message permeated through every layer of society.

DMK’s extensive use of its various wings—Youth, Women, Students, and IT—to organise programmes over several years played a crucial role. These programmes continuously educated and mobilized party supporters and the general public against what they termed the BJP’s fascist policies.

Issues such as the overreach of enforcement and investigative agencies, judicial biases, fiscal policies like the GST system, the impacts of delimitation, threats to OBC reservations, inflation, the NEET examination, biased treatment during natural calamities, and the CAA-NRC legislations were effectively communicated, highlighting the perceived threats to empowerment of the marginalised, social justice and state autonomy.

Grassroots Mobilization and Hyper-local Structures

Under MK Stalin’s leadership, DMK underwent a renaissance in terms of hyper-local party structures. By focusing on grassroots organisation, DMK ensured a robust party presence down to every street in the state. This was mirrored in the branching out of similar structures in every wing of the party, fostering a culture of strong internal communication and coordination, which is vital in a state with high political engagement.

Stalin’s strategy involved leveraging every wing of the party—Youth, Women, Students, and IT—to organize continuous programmes and outreach efforts to communicate party stands on various issues, in particular, the disinformation campaigns by BJP. The hyper-local structures are evolving in their effectiveness to coordinate among themselves, and in its interaction with the traditional party infrastructure.

Amidst varying degrees of resistance to the change in how party operates on ground, there is an overwhelming agreement among the party workers that a resilient party structure is needed to counter the electoral machine of AIADMK, BJP and social media onslaught by a variety of actors. Parties such as BJD and YSRCP had delegated this function to non-party entities like the Self-Help-Groups (SHGs) in Odisha and a network of government recruited-volunteers in Andhra Pradesh.

Digital Savvy and Strategic Communication

In a state with high digital penetration and social media consumption, DMK’s proactive digital engagement played a pivotal role. The party’s IT Wing was instrumental in countering the BJP’s well-funded digital campaigns. DMK adopted a dual strategy–the tendency to utilize professional help from consultants for strategic insights while empowering its IT Wing to manage day-to-day digital operations.

This approach ensured a scalable and effective communication model that was responsive to the fast-paced digital landscape. Additionally, efforts are being made to establish year-round accessible capacity to handle the data requirements of modern election management through organisations like the Populus Empowerment Network (PEN). This is increasingly becoming a necessity for political parties in India.

The DMK’s efforts to streamline internal communication down to hyper-local structures, although challenging, is paying off. By leveraging digital tools, the party maintained a cohesive and dynamic presence across social media platforms, effectively countering misinformation, defending its ideological stance in the social media sphere and engaging with voters in real-time.

Revitalizing Ideological Foundations

A significant aspect of DMK’s strategy was the reintroduction and emphasis on the works of ideological icons like EVR Periyar, CN Annadurai, and Kalaignar Karunanidhi, through various forums, social media groups created by the party and its wings. At the same time it also supported and at times enabled the efforts by social organisations and social media groups.

The party believed that it is the ideological strength that is required the most to counter the “status quo-ist, back to the tradition” narrative of BJP, which implicitly doesn’t challenge the feudal and caste structures, that is routinely put forth by the BJP national unit, state unit alongside the broader Sangh Parivar ecosystem.

By reconnecting with its ideological roots, the DMK reaffirmed its commitment to social justice, rationalism, and state autonomy. This ideological renewal attracted new members and revitalised existing supporters, building a strong foundation for potential electoral success while countering the ideological assault from the Sangh ecosystem in both traditional and digital media.

Holistic Policy Approach

Stalin’s administration implemented comprehensive social welfare schemes tailored to address the needs of Tamil Nadu’s diverse populace. Initiatives like the Kalaignar Mahalir Urimai Thogai (Kalaignar Women’s Rights Grant Scheme), Vidiyal Payanam (free bus travel for women), Pudhumai Pen (Higher Education Assurance Scheme for women), and Thamizh Puthalvan (equivalent program for men) exemplify DMK’s commitment to social equity. These programs, alongside the Naan Mudhalvan skill-building initiative, addressed both immediate needs and long-term aspirations of the state’s citizens.

In contrast, Jaganmohan Reddy’s reliance on direct benefit transfers and extensive welfare spending in Andhra Pradesh to the tune of 2.7 lakh crore rupees, while significant, lacked the cohesive ideological and coalition support seen in Tamil Nadu. The over-reliance on consultants and non-party volunteers, coupled with insufficient grassroots organization, left BJD and YSR Congress vulnerable. Consequently, there is a strong need to critically evaluate the new party management prescriptions that are floating in the political landscape, that favour transactional relationships against the values of ideological adherence and party loyalty.

In the wake of an evolving political landscape, the 2024 Lok Sabha elections in Tamil Nadu underscore the importance of a well-rounded political strategy. The DMK has demonstrated that effective coalition building, grassroots mobilization, digital savvy, ideological clarity, and comprehensive social policies can together create a formidable electoral force. As political landscapes across India continue to evolve, the lessons from Tamil Nadu offer a blueprint for achieving electoral success in an increasingly complex and interconnected world.

Vignesh Karthik KR is a postdoctoral research fellow of Indian and Indonesian politics at the Royal Netherlands Institute of Southeast Asian and Caribbean Studies, Leiden and Research Affiliate at the King’s India Institute, King’s College London. He tweets @krvtweets

Jeyannathann Karunanithi is an independent researcher based in Chennai. He tweets @jeyankaruna

Read all of The Wire’s reporting on and analysis of the 2024 election results here.

‘Copy Paste’, ‘Hindi Imposition’: What Opposition MPs’ Dissent Notes on the Criminal Bills Say

Eight opposition MPs from the Congress, TMC, and DMK have submitted dissent notes to the report adopted by the parliamentary standing committee on home affairs and flagged various aspects of the Bills.

New Delhi: Eight opposition MPs have given dissent notes to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Home Affairs that was tasked to examine the three new criminal bills.

The MPs have called the new legislations “largely a copy paste” of existing laws, opposed their Hindi names, flagged lack of consultation and diversity of domain expert opinion and questioned the “haste” in which the legislations are being introduced.

The three new bills including – the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Bill to replace the Indian Penal Code, 1860; the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam Bill to replace the Indian Evidence Act, 1872; and the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Bill to replace the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – were introduced in parliament on August 11.

The bills were then referred to the 31-member Parliamentary Standing Committee, which adopted its report last week. The committee was headed by BJP MP Brij Lal.

The eight MPs who gave dissent notes include Congress MP and former home minister P. Chidambaram, his party colleagues Adhir Ranjan Chowdhury, Ravneet Singh and Digvijaya Singh; DMK’s N.R. Elango and Dayanidhi Maran and TMC’s Derek O’Brien and Kakoli Ghosh Dastidar.

‘Largely a copy and paste of existing laws’

In his dissent note to the three bills, Chidambaram said that they are “largely a copy and paste” of the existing laws.

“There was absolutely no need to draft so-called new Bills. All that the Bills have done is to make a few amendments (some acceptable, some not acceptable), re-arrange the sections of the existing Laws, and merge different sections into one section with many sub-sections. This is a wasteful exercise that will have many undesirable consequences,” he wrote.

In their dissent notes, TMC’s O’Brien and Ghosh Dastidar said that the new bills are “93% copy paste legislation”.

O’Brien wrote that the pre-existing legislation could have been modified to incorporate specific changes.

Congress MPs Digvijaya Singh, Chowdhury and Ravneet Singh wrote that the laws are vastly the same and have only been renumbered.

“This exercise, experts opine, would be responsible for large scale confusion resulting in unnecessary delay in the functioning of courts and the policing agencies,” Digvijiya Singh’s note said.

The Congress MPs added that even by Union Home Minister Amit Shah’s speech in parliament while introducing the bills, the changes amount to 25.

“There was thus no need to carry out such a comprehensive and unnecessary reform for merely 12 substantive amendments (by the HM’s own examples).”

‘Hindi imposition’

In their dissenting notes almost all the opposition MPs have written against the Hindi names of the bills.

Chidambaram cited Article 348 of the constitution that states that all Acts shall be in the English language which is also the language of the Supreme Court and the High Courts.

“To have a Hindi only name to the Bill, irrespective of the language of the Bill is highly objectionable, unconstitutional, an affront to the non-Hindi speaking people (e.g. Tamils, Gujaratis or Bengalis) and opposed to federalism.”

DMK MP Maran said that the bills “will further change the federal relationship and structure between the Union and the State.”

“If these bills tum into Act’s, the people in non-Hindi speaking states will find difficulty in pronouncing and handling these Acts. At the grass root level they will not be able to understand the texture, character, tenor, and nature of the act if the title remains in Hindi and implementation will be very difficult including filing of FIR’s.”

DMK MP Elango said that the committee has not considered the suggestions on the naming of the bills in Hindi which undermines federalism in as much as it “goes against the linguistic feelings of non-Hindi speaking Indians.”

TMC’s O’Brien said that the nomenclature of the bills in Hindi, amounts to not only “Hindi imposition” but also “unconstitutional.”

‘Lack of consultation, diversity of opinion’

The opposition MPs in their dissent notes have also flagged the lack of proper consultation in drafting the bills.

Chidambaram said that besides state governments, Bar Associations, State and Central Police organisations, the Indian Police Foundation, the National Law School Universities, judges of the subordinate judiciary who apply the laws every day, eminent retired judges of the Supreme Court and the High Courts, eminent senior advocates and legal scholars were not consulted at the consideration stage by circulating the draft Bills and inviting them to comment.

“We strongly object to the process followed on the grounds of insufficiency, non- inclusionary, non scholarly and lack of adequate time for consideration by the Members,” he wrote.

O’Brien also said that the committee procedure lacked inclusivity in stakeholder consultations. “Many of the people called to testify had strong leanings or were associated with the ruling dispensation,” his note said.

He also referred to letters that he had sent to the chairperson (attached in his dissent note) and said that multiple verbal and written requests had been made by the undersigned to invite experts and practitioners to testify.

Drafting errors

The opposition MPs also pointed to what they called were “drafting errors” in the legislations.

In his dissent note Chidambaram said that he had pointed to drafting errors but only some have been adopted and added that both “imprisonment for life” and “imprisonment for the remainder of a person’s natural life” should be separately defined and used in appropriate sections.

He added that a definition should also be provided for “community service”.

Flagging such errors in the bills and O’Brien said that it was a “stunt before 2024 elections” and that the “hasty passage” of the bills may result in “unintended consequences and contribute to public dissatisfaction.”

O’Brien also alleged that the committee had limited “the meaningful participation of the opposition” and said that meetings were scheduled during the festive season when members had prior constituency engagements and said that the opposition was allowed only an hour to scrutinise and critique the bills.

‘Essentially colonial’

The Congress MPs Digvijaya Singh, Chowdhury and Ravneet Singh in their dissent notes said that the laws were “essentially colonial” even though the stated purpose of the exercise was to shed the colonial nature of the criminal laws.

“For example, most punishments for offences under the IPC have been retained. Further, punishments for some offences have been made harsher and the death penalty has been added for at least four new crimes such as mob lynching, organised crime, terrorism and rape of a minor. The removal of law on sedition was a mere symbolic gesture as it is replaced by a Clause 150 Bharatiya Nyay Samhita which is much more tyrannical and colonial in its essence. Ultimately, there has been no shift towards a rehabilitative approach to criminal laws,” their notes said.

The Congress MPs have also objected to the use of handcuffs under clause 43(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Bill which allows the use of handcuffs by police officers for certain offences.

Citing the Supreme Court order in 1980 which held that handcuffs are an anathema to human dignity, the Congress MPs stated that this section is more in line with “colonial mindset of punitive control of state”.

‘Enhances Union government’s policing powers’

The opposition MPs also said that the bills enhance the centre’s policing powers “without any checks and balances.”

“While the Bill seeks to enhance the time for which a person can be kept in police custody, there exists no protective measures to provide safety to the accused persons under police custody which is bound to adversely affect the safety of detainees,” wrote Digvijaya Singh in his note.

The Congress MPs added that by increasing the period of detention beyond the period of fifteen days, the new laws have ignored and undone the safeguard of judicial custody where police have to take Magistrate’s permission to interrogate an accused.

Both TMC MPs O’Brien and Ghosh Dastidar said that increasing the period of police custody without proper safeguards could lead to human rights violations, “including the risk of torture, coerced confessions, and abuse of detainees.”

“This is particularly concerning given the history of custodial violence and abuse in India,” wrote Ghosh Dastidar.

‘Abolish death penalty’

The opposition MPs have also written against the retention of the death penalty.

“This is the golden opportunity to consider, to do away with the death penalty. Humanism will ever be grateful to us if we deliberate and abolish the death penalty,” wrote Elango.

Citing data provided by the National Law University Delhi’s criminal justice programme Project 39A, both O’Brien and Ghosh Dastidar said that there is a need to re-evaluate death penalty in the country.

Ghosh Dastidar’s note said that a significant majority of death row inmates come from economically disadvantaged backgrounds, lacking proper education, and belonging to marginalised communities. “This data underscores the urgent need for re-evaluating the death penalty in the country.”

Chidambaram in his note stated that it has been “established that death penalty is no deterrent to serious crimes.”

“An imprisonment for the remainder of natural life without parole is, in fact, a more rigorous punishment and also opens a window of opportunity for the convict to reform,” he wrote.

Sedition law

In her dissent note, Ghosh Dastidar said that the sedition law has been “retained with a broader definition that can encompass a wide range of actions under the pretext of endangering India’s unity and integrity.”

“This expansion of the law provides authorities with significant discretion, contrary to the recommendation of the 22nd Law Commission, which called for a well-defined sedition law,” her note said.

O’Brien said that while the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Bill does not explicitly have a Section 124A (IPC section that refers to sedition) it has Section 150, which reintroduces sedition in the bills in a “more draconian manner.”

Marital rape

The Congress MPs also said that despite the stated purpose of the legislations being women’s safety, marital rape has not been criminalised in the bills. They also objected to Clause 69 of the Bharatiya Nyay Samhita that refers to sexual intercourse by employing deceitful means and stated that deceitful means is too broad and can be prone to misuse to harass interfaith and inter caste couples.