Yes Bank

The following was blogged on November 27, 2018. Is RBI's action too belated? Another post will soon  follow.

"Yes Bank is oddly named. No bank can say 'yes' to all requests from customers. There are better ways of communicating one's positive outlook than through an ill-advised name.

What is in a name? There are occasions when everything is in a name. What is the bank saying 'yes' to? Subterfuges and shenanigans? Ever since RBI stalled Rana Kapoor's attempts to continue as the bank's CEO, many reports have emerged disclosing borrowings by shadow banks (NBFCs) belonging to the yes group from mutual funds on the security of shares in Yes Bank. These loans have been ploughed back into some companies of the group as equity.

These transactions are not unlawful. But when under a regulatory scanner, any ethically dubious transaction is  viewed as an egregious transgression.

These are not isolated transactions. There has been a pattern. There have been marked divergences between NPAs disclosed by the bank and those flagged by RBI. Why did Rana Kapoor take to devious ways when the bank was doing well? Or, was the bank doing well only thanks to these difficult-to-justify methods?

Ashok Chawla could not continue as Chairman apparently because there are some allegations of corruption against him. A whistle blower is supposed to have alleged that the bank's CEO had indulged in corrupt transactions. Coincidental charges against both the chairman and the CEO  make Yes Bank more notorious than ICICI Bank. Neither bank was able to deal with the reputation risk adroitly.

Is there a giveaway in names of organisations? Satyam, Global Trust and Yes - all are indicators of qualities these organisations did not possess!"

Judiciary, the punching bag?

John Roberts, Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court, has taken exception to a warning issued by Schumer, an American politician and Senate Democratic leader, to two judges of the Supreme Court. Schumer had earlier said that the two judges appointed by President Trump would 'pay the price' if they voted against abortion rights. (Judicial reconsideration of Roe vs Wade is a recurrent theme in the American legal world.) (Senator Schumer has since admitted that he should not have used the words he had employed.)

Harsh Mander is playing Schumer with the Indian Supreme Court, but without any remorse. He has attributed partiality to judges of the Court on many occasions. He is in the habit of condemning some judgements for not interpreting constitutional provisions 'correctly.' The Supreme Court must come down heavily on persons like Harsh Mander who are bent upon trivialising the course of justice. Inability to accept judicial pronouncements not in accord with one's ideological predilections is an extreme case of intolerance. It is a mark of such intolerant persons to accuse others of intolerance and subversion of 'secularism'.

Judicial restraint

Justice Arun Mishra said in a function that "under the stewardship of internationally acclaimed visionary Prime Minister Narendra Modi, India was committed to constitutional obligations and was responsible and most friendly member of the international community."

Predictably, Mishra's utterance has been excoriated by legal luminaries like Justices (retired) A.P.Shah, R.S.Sodhi and P.B.Sawant. Their contention is that Mishra has sent a wrong message to other judges and that a person who expresses such a view about the executive head cannot be neutral in cases involving the executive.

Has Justice Mishra erred in voicing his opinion about the Prime Minister? The judge also said, "We  thank the versatile genius, who thinks globally and acts locally, for his inspiring speech." One may also argue that this is indulgence in hyperbole. There is however a distinction between correctness or otherwise of a view on the one hand and the right to express that on the other.

The only consequence that automatically follows is that in case there is a petition questioning constitutional propriety of any action of Modi, Mishra would be well advised to recuse himself in the case. In this regard the judge's record is less than exemplary. In an ongoing petition in the Supreme Court regarding land acquisition, Justice Mishra chose not to recuse himself though a judgement earlier delivered by him is a subject of the case. (In our legal system, recusal is left to the discretion of the concerned judge.)

It is easy to criticise a judge for what he says. It is not possible though to accuse a judge for an opinion he may hold which he never expresses. When a judge is vocal about his views, we are at least aware of his propensity. In this sense, we ought to welcome judges expressing their views frankly. We cannot deny the judges their freedom of expression in our enthusiasm for judicial restraint.

We may never know whether a judge who praises a minister is ipso facto biased. At the same time, we expect the judge to keep his predilections away while pronouncing a judgement. Are we expecting superhuman behaviour from a human judge?

Numerical nihilist

Prof. Jayati Ghosh, a development economist, has blamed the central budget 2020-21 as containing only lies. "Every single number in the budget is a lie."

How so? According to the learned professor, since the budget was presented on February 1st itself, the figures for 2019-20 contained in the budget include data up to December, 2019 only and estimates for remaining three months. Does the professor want accurate current figures before the budget is presented? Is it possible?

The professor ought to know that even the figures up to Dec 31 are only approximate. It is natural that numbers undergo a lot of revisions and corrections in a country of our size. Comfort with approximations is one of the requirements for a practical economist. Is discomfort with all numbers a prerequisite for a JNU professor?

Prof.Ghosh claims that current slowdown is worse than 1991 and 2008. One may respond to her with her own argument. What are the numbers in her calculations which have enabled her to come to the conclusion about the severity of current slowdown? Are they not a bundle of lies?

"Every single item of receipts, the revised estimates for what they are spending this year and all what they have received this year is a lie."

WHO on coronavirus

Coronavirus has spawned a huge infodemic that makes our heads spin. If there is one incontrovertible fact, it is that the problem started in China. Thankfully the Chinese government has not denied that what is now a pandemic originated in China. There are limits even to the Chinese opacity and deniability.

If China is unable to deflect the blame elsewhere, the World Health Organisation has come to its rescue. "This is the time for solidarity, not stigma" asserts WHO's Director-General, Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus. In other words, do not question what went wrong in China.

Initially, WHO tried to soft-pedal the issue and refused to declare the viral outbreak as PHEIC (Public Health Emergency of International Concern.) On January 30th when the seriousness of the contagion could not be contained in vague phrases, WHO relented and declared the epidemic as PHEIC. At the same time, the UN body insisted that this move was not a criticism of the Chinese policy or action (was it not inaction for a week or so since the virus started spreading?) but was meant to help those countries which were less equipped to deal with deadly infections.

WHO does not want travel and trade restrictions from various countries to China. The famed organisation has said that such restrictions are a social, political and economic recipe for disaster. WHO thinks that these restrictions would shame China, the country that WHO does not want to antagonise. WHO can afford to be more professional and less scared of big powers.

The DG has advised that the only way we can defeat this outbreak is for all countries to work together in a spirit of solidarity and cooperation. "We are all in this together and we can only stop it  together." So, China is off the hook! Tedros has also certified, "Were it not for China's efforts, we would have seen many more cases outside China." Really? (Some observers believe that China delayed informing the world and its own citizens about the viral outbreak and a lot of damage was done before the country started shutting down the entire Hubei province. Wuhan, the capital of Hubei, is the epicentre of the epidemic.)

Supreme Court of India

We can divide the Supreme Court history into 3 periods. The first was when the judges had good grasp of both law and English (Justice Patanjali Sastry and others). The second crop of judges were adept in English and not so in law (Justice V.R.Krishna Iyer). The present is amateurish in both. 

Chief Justice S.A.Bobde has commented "there is no let-down in crimes against women." This conveys the opposite of what he wants to say. He meant let-up and goofed up with let-down. Let-down means disappointment!

Supreme Court and Chidambaram's bail

Reading the 36 page judgement of the Supreme Court reversing the Delhi High Court decision and granting bail to P.Chidambaram, one gets the impression that one's faith in the judicial process is neither sustained nor restored.

The Supreme Court substantially agrees with the High Court, but cleverly and perhaps cunningly arrives at the contrary decision. The apex court accepts that economic offences are a class apart. It is therefore the case that the tripod test (flight risk, tampering with documentary evidence and influencing the witnesses) is not the only consideration to decide on bail applications. Yet it is also held that bail is the rule and jail the exception.

The sealed cover may contain the reasons why bail is not called for. But then, bail is the rule. The accused is 74 years old. He had to consume antibiotics in jail! Is PC the only pre-trial prisoner satisfying these conditions? The court could have used this opportunity to enquire how many such prisoners were there in Tihar jail itself. Does the court care for equality before the law?

The court accepts that the gravity of alleged offence is a relevant consideration. There is a rider there also. The maximum period of prison sentence for his alleged offence is ONLY 7 years and so bail is the norm.

Tushar Mehta had made it clear to the court that the charge sheet is not yet exhaustive and that further investigation is necessary in the interest of justice. Witnesses had confirmed that they had come under pressure from the accused and his family. All these matter little to the court because the accused is 74 years old and has lost weight while in prison. If these are accepted as exculpatory reasons for lenience in grant of bail, the prisons will become almost empty.