Antrix Devas: A fraudulent termination of a fraudulent contract

The corrupt of the world have much to learn from us, as it is now universally acknowledged that our national capacity to defraud the public exchequer is among the highest in the world. One of the greatest skills that India has built up over the past few decades is in designing of scams, executing them, and then covering them up, not only from the law, but also from people’s memories. The most universally recognized Make in India product is the Indian Scam, truly state of the art.

Of course, corruption happens in almost all countries and societies in the world. But the sheer magnitude, scale and sustainability of India’s corruption is exceptional - the brilliance with which scams are conceptualized, the seamless operations of the political, official and business machinery in cahoots with the quasi criminal sections of the citizenry, all nicely fitting into the loopholes of the law.

After the embezzlement has been successfully executed, we show great expertise in hushing it up, destroying evidence, obfuscating and delaying, protecting the corrupt, nailing hapless scapegoats, all under direct political supervision and bureaucratic connivance/subjugation. Investigations are scuttled or derailed and the CBI becomes the PBI-the Political Bureau of Investigation. Take a look at the last decade – scandals aplenty, punishment nil.

Well, a scam which started in 2003 and mysteriously persists till today is the Antrix Devas scam. It neither gets exposed nor does it close. And till today the general public has not been informed the whole truth about it. Fortunately it is in news again.



A news item appeared on February 28, that the Delhi High Court admitted Devas Multimedia's plea to attach the bank accounts of ISRO's Antrix Corporation to secure damages worth USD 672 million (Rs 4,435.20 crore). These had been awarded to Devas in 2015 by a Tribunal of the International Chamber of Commerce in Paris for “damages and pre-award interest.” The Delhi High Court has directed Antrix to file before March 21, an affidavit by an authorized officer, along with its audited balance sheets and profit and loss accounts for the past three years, to facilitate the hearing in the matter.

In another Arbitration, in July 2016, the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) Tribunal at the Hague held the Indian Government liable to pay compensation to the tune of 40 per cent of investment made by foreign investors of Devas Multimedia.

There is yet another arbitration in respect of Deutsche Telekom’s investment of USD 100 million for which judgment is reserved and the award is expected to be much bigger than the last. So altogether the Indian tax payer can look forward to being mowed down under at least Rs 10,000 crores by the time Antrix has finished losing every Arbitration case.

Now, how did this happen? This happened because the fraudulent Antrix Devas Contract was terminated most fraudulently by the then ISRO Chairman in 2011 - the highest act of corruption and betrayal of the people of India.

Devas had claimed in the Antrix-Devas Contract of January 2005 (Clause 12 b) that it had the ability to design Digital Multimedia Receivers (“DMR”) and Commercial Information Devices (“CID”) and had the ownership and the right to use the intellectual property, viz. SDMB technology, involved in their designs. Allegations started mounting around 2009, regarding the authenticity of the IPR claimed by Devas, and a spate of enquiries followed. The then Financial Advisor, G Balachandran had repeatedly informed ISRO Chairman Radhakrishnan that the Satellite Digital Multimedia Broadcasting, (SDMB) technology claimed by Devas in the Contract is not a confidential and proprietary technology held by it. The note recommended that these facts should be intimated to the Cabinet Committee on Security (CCS) and the contract should be cancelled on grounds that Devas had given false information when signing the contract about its ownership and rights over the technology and intellectual property, and acted fraudulently. The Financial Advisor also intimated Radhakrishnan that if the contract was terminated on these grounds, the chances of Devas winning any case of Arbitration are remote.

Why did Radhakrishnan disregard this shocking revelation and the sound financial advice given by his Financial Advisor? Why did he not recommend to the CCS to cancel the Contract on grounds provided to him in writing by his officers that the Contract was induced by fraud and misrepresentation and was null and void? Had he done so, Devas would not have succeeded in winning every arbitration, and the Indian tax payer would have been spared the unpardonable financial burden that has started descending upon him.

And thereafter, Antrix and ISRO did everything possible to ensure that they lose the arbitration cases.

I request my readers to go through what I wrote about this case in my blog in October 2015 in http://www.ramjethmalanimp.in/latest-posts/antrix-devas-scam-continues-what-i-predicted-in-2009-has-happenedand in my article in Sunday Guardian in 2014, which my readers can see at http://www.sunday-guardian.com/analysis/antrix-devas-space-odyssey-continues

I had requested the Prime Minister ‘to appoint a panel of eminent legal experts to put the Department of Space on the right legal track and safeguard national interest and the taxpayers' money. Legal amends can yet be made to save the nation and the taxpayer from being robbed of Rs 18,000 crore by this criminal conspiracy.”

This was the new Narendra Modi Government who came to power on a strong anti corruption agenda, and it was legally possible to have done so. But they chose to do nothing about it, and the people of India, the plaintiffs, were converted into defendants.



Clearly, in retaliation to Devas for persisting in its efforts for execution of the Award and securing a favourable order from the Delhi High Court on February 28, on the same day the Enforcement Directorate, (after sleeping for several years), issued a Press Release that stated that they had ‘provisionally’ attached about Rs 80 crores from Devas.

This was a bit of a hoax because this amount included Rs 68 crores which had been paid by Devas to Antrix as Upfront Capacity Reservation Fee, which Antrix had returned to Devas after annulling the Contract, and Devas had not accepted.

But what was a bit unusual about the ED Press Release was that its main emphasis was that “The agreement entered into by Devas with the ISRO/ACL is illegal as Devas did not have any technology/ownership of intellectual property rights to deliver the Multimedia Services and the main purpose of entering the agreement with ISRO/ACL was to raise foreign investments on the strength of the Agreement with ISRO and thereafter siphon off the investment raised, out of India in the guise of investment in subsidiary Company, Business Support Services and Legal Fee.”

This is something that Chairman ISRO should have said in 2011 and declared the Contract null and void. This is what Prime Minister Modi should have said in 2014, and rectified the mischief of the previous Government. This what the media should be asking even today. Sadly, a blanket of silence seems to have shrouded them.

If this is meant to be a message to arm twist Devas, it is too late. This ground should have been made by Chairman ISRO in 2011 to declare the contract null and void, and pleaded thereafter during the Arbitration proceedings.

The Antrix Devas scam is unique, one of its kind, a classic case of smooth inheritance of a scam sprawling three different Governments from 2003 to 2017. Its history begins in 2003, when dialogue between ISRO/Antrix starts with M/s Forge Advisors regarding opportunities in the global satellite market. It smoothly transitioned to the UPA Government and the Contract was signed in January 2005. Incidentally, Chairman M/s Forge Advisors, Shri Ramanathan Vishwanathan later in December 2004 became Chairman of the quickly cooked up Devas India, the Indian entity with which the Antrix Board approved the infamous Contract a few weeks later on December 24, 2004. And despite the unsavoury disclosures, it was once again inherited with complete ownership by the Modi Government in 2014. The present Government did nothing to rectify the corrupt decision of its predecessors. Instead, they continued with the same premises, which were sure to spell defeat for Antrix in the several Arbitrations. Not at all like the Agusta Westland or the National Herald scams in which the present Government is taking some interest from time to time. Clearly, this scam has extremely powerful backers, cutting across party lines.

Or was the termination error intentional? The nation has not forgotten the Bhopal tragedy, and how the compensation money for the dead and afflicted became the richest contribution to the private coffers of several politicians and their cronies.

One last observation. Is it a coincidence that the last two ISRO Chairmen rushed to the RSS after they retired? Any guesses why?

Sadly, ISRO and Antrix are in disarray, and the Prime Minister seems not in control. He owes it to the nation to tell them the true facts.

A warning and Advice to the Calcutta Judge

Bringing Accountability in the Caged Parrot

The popular perception of the Central Bureau of Investigation is that it is a superior investigation agency, that its investigations are thorough, meticulous and fair, and that it is above political interference. When people or the Opposition in the States are disgusted at the investigations and behaviour of the State Police which comes directly under the political masters, there is always a shrill cry to refer the matter to the CBI, as if it’s integrity and investigation expertise is of a divine order. If only the people knew that the one thing the CBI has remained true to is the date of its founding, that is April 1, 1963. They have, as they have grown, perfected the art of fooling the people all the time.

The Central Bureau of Investigation has been showing itself in several avataras over the last few months.

We read in the papers last month that the Supreme Court directed new CBI chief to lead a criminal probe against the former CBI director Mr Ranjit Sinha over his private meetings with the accused in the coal block allocations. Something unprecedented - a sitting CBI Director conducting a criminal investigation against his predecessor.

Then we read a few days ago that the CBI has registered a case against yet another former CBI Chief Shri AP Singh for allegedly providing favours to the notorious meat exported Moin Quereshi, who is an accused in a graft case, raiding his house et al.

These two incidents suffice to inform the general public about the kind of leadership that political governments value greatly when selecting the CBI Chief.

The appointment of the present CBI Chief Shri Alok Sinha was also preceded by some mysterious political decision making. The previous CBI Director Shri Anil Kumar Sinha retired on December 2, 2016. The senior most officer of the organization, who was most competent and qualified to succeed him, Rupak Dutta, was shunted out two days before A K Sinha’s term ended to a nonexistent post. One of the junior most officers, Rakesh Asthana, a Gujarat Police officer, whose name did not even figure in the panel was appointed ‘Acting Director’ CBI.

This was unusual and unprecedented, lending itself to the most unsavoury speculation. This situation continued for more than a month without the Selection Committee being called. Finally, it was called just after the new Chief Justice was appointed, and Mr Alok Kumar Verma, was selected as Director, with the leader of the Opposition, reportedly giving a dissenting view. Verma is known to be a fine officer and gentleman, but the general talk is that the strings will be pulled by the Gujarat Cadre Additional Director. The present government has shown itself as blatant and brazen as its predecessor to keep the CBI as its pet caged parrot.

After what the country has seen of the top brass of this premier investigation agency, let us come down to their personnel. The CBI staff today is constituted of a few IPS officers deputed from the State Governments from the ranks of SP and above, and a bulk of officers directly recruited by the CBI ranging from Sub Inspectors to Dy SPs. The IPS officers have ensured that they remain supervisory officers for investigation and never have to sign any FIR or a charge sheet to be presented for the Courts. Thereby they are very well insulated against any strictures by the Courts for faulty investigations or failure of the prosecution case. Most of their time is spent in maintaining cordial relations with those in power and protecting their subordinates, who may be hauled up by the Courts for faulty investigation.

Recently, the Special CBI Court of Shri O.P.Saini discharged the Maran brothers and all accused in the CBI case filed against them in the Aircel-Maxis deal cases filed by the CBI and Enforcement Directorate in 2013. The meaning of ‘discharge’ according the Cr PC is that the Investigation Officer (I.O) of the CBI filed a charge sheet against Maran Brothers without any shred of evidence, which resulted in their discharge.

One might ask as to what was the role or contribution of the supervisory IPS officers in this case, or did the I.O file the charge sheet without their knowledge or supervision? The public will never come to know the answers to these questions. From the Bofors case till date, the same situation continues. On the other hand, the IPS officers of the CBI work overtime to file an appeal in a higher court to protect their subordinates in such cases. There is a vested interest in doing this. For if they do not protect them, the subordinate officers would stop filing charge sheets in the courts as per directions received from their political bosses. There is hardly any case where the CBI does not file an appeal when it’s case fails in a trial court. They do it for their self-preservation, and for protecting their officers from defamation/damage charges that they may face in future from those they’ve wronged. Appeals in the higher courts go on for decades. But the CBI officers have the luxury to file these appeals with tax payers’ money, whereas the accused if he is really innocent or honest will have to fight them with his own hard earned money.

The CBI never registers “suo moto” cases against its own officers for wrong doing, unless by an order of the Court, as in the case of the former Director of CBI Ranjit Sinha. It was due to the efforts made by Prashant Bhushan’s NGO spending time and money that a probe was ordered by the Supreme Court against the former CBI Director. The public would like to see this probe report in print and not in a sealed cover citing morale of the organization as a pretext. The CBI constantly conceals from the public its failings and misdeeds, and has the means and political clout to do so. It is this unaccountability that emboldens the CBI to indulge recklessly in its misdeeds and damage reputations.



Every time the CBI registers a regular case, there is a great deal of publicity about raids conducted, and seizure of incriminating evidence. Often family members are humiliated during these searches and subsequent interrogations, something the members of the general public never get to know. Last year, an entire family in Delhi committed suicide because of harassment and torture by the CBI. But nothing is known of what action was taken against the torturers.



If the CBI is to be reformed and made more accountable, a performance audit of the CBI must be made mandatory. While the CBI periodically issues press releases showing a high percentage of conviction by the Courts in the cases handled by them, no one knows how these percentages have been calculated, and how many convictions by the trial courts are later set aside by the higher courts. No CBI press release ever reveals this.

To give out a true picture of its performance, the CBI should list out all the cases (R.C) investigated by it each year, and should provide information whether it ended in discharge, acquitted or conviction. Next, it should provide information whether an appeal was filed by it or the accused in the High Court and if so what the result of such appeal was, and thereafter whether an appeal was filed in the Supreme Court and its result.

For arriving at a truthful conviction rate, only such cases where conviction was not appealed against or was upheld in any appeals filed should be counted. The number of such cases as a percentage of the total number of cases registered in each calendar year alone can give the true conviction rate of cases registered by the CBI, and should be made known to the public, and placed on their website without claiming exemption from the RTI Act. This could perhaps be a small beginning to instill some sense of accountability in the CBI.

My letter to the present Finance Minister and Former Finance Minister seeking explanation if any

My Open Letter to One of The Many Aspiring Rashtrapatis of Bharat

My letter to the Finance Minister