More than 11 years after BusinessLine first highlighted concerns around the deal between Antrix Multimedia and ISRO’s commercial arm Antrix, a key official who was entrusted with investigating the transaction, has for the first time spoken out, explaining how his recommendation to scrap the agreement was suppressed by top officials.
Gopalan Balachandhran had joined the Department of Space (DoS) in April 2009 as Financial Advisor in the rank of Additional Secretary and was asked to review a report submitted by BN Suresh, a senior scientist. In an interview with BusinessLine, Balachandhran shares the events that led to the cancellation of the controversial deal.
When did you suspect that something was wrong with the Devas-ISRO deal?
The then Secretary, Department of Space, had asked me to examine the DN Suresh Committee Report on the Antrix-Devas Agreement He had also asked me to prepare an Agenda Note for the Space Commission on the Agreement. On perusing Suresh’s one-member Committee Report and examining reports I had collected from various wings of ISRO, DOS and Antrix to help me complete the Agenda Note, I suspected that many things were seriously wrong with the agreement. To quote just one example, Devas was formed with an investment of ₹1 lakh, divided into 10,000 equity shares of face value of ₹10. A substantial quantity of these shares of a face value of ₹10 were sold at the rate of ₹ 1.26 lakhs per share by Devas, which had no assets whatsoever except the Agreement executed with Antrix!
Did you know at that time that fraud was being committed, and that individuals in DoS were benefitting from the deal?
Yes. After I started looking into the papers related to the Agreement, I found that the actions of officials who played a role in clearing the Antrix-Devas deal were suspect in many aspects,.
To state a few, in my report on the Suresh Committee’s Report, I had given documentary evidence to show that in order to conclude the Agreement, financial due-diligence was not done properly. The legal opinion given was a sham and was completely wrong. The SATCOM Policy was violated. The Cabinet was misled by false information and by suppression of vital information. The then Scientific Secretary, ISRO, who is also one of the accused in the CBI case, had tampered with the record of Minutes of a meeting in January, 2009 of the TAG sub-committee.
In pages 192-193 of my Report, I have provided documentary evidence of this crime. This heinous act was to ensure that Devas would have a smooth sail.
So, what was the interest of each of the personnel who were responsible for such fraudulent actions? Serious vigilance and criminal investigations were required to cull out the cause of such culpability. I had, in my Report, recommended the same.
Were you rewarded for your interventions or were you sidelined?
In establishments such as DRDO or ISRO or the Atomic Commission., there is only one superior, especially to those from the civil services like IAS or IRS, who come on deputation. If I were in a Ministry such as Health, Rural Development, etc., in the event of my falling out with the top man on a matter of principle, there will be seven other senior officers from other or the same department who would have worked with me and would have tried to help out. But here nobody can take up the issue. There is only one person and he alone is heard by the powers that be. Here it was the Secretary, DoS.
You are asking about rewards for my interventions or being sidelined! I would have been happy with either. Instead, I was hounded out. When I was relentlessly pursuing the issue, I was shown the prospect of a CBI enquiry against me. One of my family members was sent an Income Tax notice.
The Congress Government and allies refused my empanelment to the rank of Secretary to the Govt of India. I don’t want to go further to sound melodramatic. Suffice to say, I was made to feel persona non grata among my own service colleagues.
But all this blissfully changed when Ram Jethmalani, in his article published in the Statesman in India and the Guardian in London, mentioned how the Secretary, DoS, had bypassed the “unimpeachable advice of Balachandran”. Jethmalani did not know me but gained access to my report, which prompted his observation.
Who do you hold responsible for the entire fiasco?
There is a general misconception that the signing of the agreement was the fiasco. No. The agreement was the mischievous handiwork of greedy elements, aided by pliable non-worthies.
But the real fiasco was the way the Cabinet was made to terminate the agreement on the weak ground of application of force majuere, viz Antrix informing Devas that the Government which had agreed in 2005 to make available spectrum, suddenly discovered in 2010 that they could not part with their spectrum anymore.
There was a strong ground to terminate the Agreement on the unassailable grounds of the fraudulence of Devas. As Financial Advisor I intimated Secretary, DoS thrice about this. Yet, the agreement was cancelled on grounds that cost the national exchequer a few hundred crores of rupees in fighting arbitrations abroad and a fraudulent customer like Devas, winning two arbitrations and coursing smoothly in a third, which put together amounted to around $3 billion, more than ₹22,000 crore, ordered by the arbitrators against GOI.
Do you feel vindicated after the Supreme Court judgement wherein it has clearly upheld the order for liquidating Devas as a company?
I feel vindicated to a great extent. My struggle since 2010 and the wait of 12 years has been mostly rewarded. The most important points put forward by Antrix before NCLAT in their prayer for liquidating Devas are the ones that I had informed Secretary, Department of Space, as early as in December 2010 and January 2011.
The important points raised by Antrix before the NCLAT(para 5.1 of SC’s order refers) are the findings in my Report submitted to Secretary, DOS on 09-01-2011:
None of the S-DMB technologies that Devas spoke of in the Agreement existed either on the date of formation of Devas or on the date of execution of the Agreement or on the date of termination of the Agreement and not even on the date of winding up of the company. (My note to Secretary, DOS, dt.02.12.2010, para 8.1 iv and annexure 12 of my Report to Secretary, DoS submitted on 09.01.2011)
So, you should be happy that you have won the war?
No. I think I have won a very important battle, not the final war.
The Supreme Court does not have jurisdiction outside India as much as Courts outside India do not have jurisdiction in India; but they have jurisdiction in their respective territories. Two courts abroad have already given orders in favour of Devas to proceed against India’s public property – one against the Airports Authority of India and another against the Indian Embassy’s house in Paris. This mischief will go on and Devas will try to create an impression abroad that it is difficult for foreign investors to do business in India.
It is important for India to successfully challenge and rubbish such false propaganda.
What should India do to present its case in international Courts better?
So, it is clear, both Antrix and CBI have found that Devas had succeeded in suppressing the information that they did not have IPR from reaching the Cabinet. Unless we state this fact, we will not be able to conclusively prove to those courts Devas’ multiple crimes.
Once this is done, Devas’s mischievous attempts will fail and end. Investors abroad would know that this is not a vindictive or frivolous act of GOI against a genuine investor, but action against fraud.
I will, then, feel fully vindicated.
For, the war would have been won, both for the nation and for me.