Income Declaration Scheme 2016

The Income Declaration Scheme (IDS) 2016 formally ended 30th September, 2016. It was part of the series of concerted efforts by this government in its fight against black money.  Some pertinent points in the lead up to this scheme and the results of the IDS are :

  • IDS was another step in the Government’s concerted fight against black money starting with the establishment of the SIT in its first cabinet meeting itself of the present government.
  • Since then, over Rs. 8,000 crores of foreign black money has been assessed from the HSBC list with another Rs.4,100 crore disclosed through the compliance window for foreign black money.
  • Over Rs. 56, 000 crores black money has been detected through search operations.
  • The Mauritius Double Tax Avoidance Treaty, which had been a source of tax evasion, was successfully re-negotiated, plugging a long standing loophole which many thought would never be removed.
  • The Income Disclosure Scheme, the latest in the Government’s package of measures, has resulted in declaration of over Rs. 65,000 crores of unaccounted money.
  • This will yield a tax revenue of over Rs. 29,000 crore, or 0.2% of GDP. This will be collected partly this fiscal year and partly next fiscal year.
  • This IDS, unlike its predecessor, involved payment of full normal tax plus a penalty of 50% of the normal tax; this government wanted to ensure that those who evade do not get any benefit and pay more than the honest tax payers. In the previous scheme only the normal slab rate alone (30%) was payable.
  • In this scheme, those declaring assets had to value them at their current market value.
  • In the previous scheme, those declaring their unaccounted money were given discretion to value their assets, like gold and real estate, at a back-dated value. Because of this, the scheme led to large scale undervaluation of assets. Therefore, though a tax of Rs. 9,700 crores was collected from a declaration of Rs. 33,500 crore, it reduced the growth rate of tax revenue in subsequent years.
  • In the present IDS the declared amount of over Rs. 65,000 crores has come from 64,275 declarants—i.e. the average amount declared is about Rs. 1 crore per person. In the previous scheme, it was Rs. 7 lakh only, and the money came from 4.75 lakh declarants.
  • By adding Rs. 65,000 crores to the ‘white economy’, the success of this scheme will have a multiplier effect, because this money can be used as collateral for getting credit of a much larger amount. Hence, this scheme will have an overall positive impact of several times the amount disclosed.

The fight against black money has been multi pronged, right from the very first day this government took office.  The Income Declaration Scheme gave one last chance to evaders to join the mainstream. Many thousands did. Some still did not. They were warned. They were given time. Now they will have no reason to complain when action follows !

Note: This post has been tagged under the ‘Notes and Releases’ category.



PM’s letters on Union Budget 2015-16

The Union Budget 2015-16, presented by Government of India, has been a path-breaking budget in ways more than one. This was the first budget were ideas were crowd-sourced from citizens directly, using the MyGov platform, and many of the innovative ideas suggested by citizens were actually presented as part of the budget proposals, subsequently passed by the Parliament.

Prime Minister, Narendra Modi himself shared a case study on this unique process of participative decision-making through the official PMO India Twitter handle:

As part of this new, transparent, two-way communication process, the Prime Minister has now written directly to different citizens groups, communicating with them on what is there in the budget for each of these respective groups. To make the development paradigm into a mass movement, the citizens ought to be continuously engaged, before decisions are made and after, and this is an effort in that direction.

These letters were written on 31st March, just before the beginning of the new financial year, and they are appended below.

1. PM's letter to Farmers

Farmer - layout Farmer 1 Farmer 2 Farmer 3 Farmer 4
2. PM's letter to Youth
Youth - Layout Youth 1 Youth 2Youth 3  
Youth 4
3. PM's letter to Senior Citizens
Sr Citizen - Layout

 Sr Citizen 1 Sr Citizen 2
4. PM's letter to Small Business Owners
Small Bus - Layout
 Small Bus 1 Small Bus 2 Small Bus 3 Small Bus 4

5. PM's letter to Industrial Workers
Industrial WorkerInd Worker 2


Note: This post is in the notes and releases group and therefore it is merely hosting the PM’s letter for wider dissemination.

Black Money Probe – Modi is Right

Modi government’s active cooperation with SC appointed SIT

  • Since 2011, SC has ordered constitution of SIT to investigate any and every case relating to black money menace.
  • The first decision of Modi government was to appoint SIT as per the orders of the Supreme Court.
  • A complete list of cases where information has been obtained from the German and French governments, along with up-dated status of action taken by Income-tax Department was submitted by Central Board of Direct Taxes to SIT on 27.06.2014. Therefore, SIT had all the information that was provided to the SC today. This has been confirmed by Justice MB Shah, the retired SC judge who is heading the SIT, in an interview to a news channel. He said “all facts that were revealed in the black money list were already known to us”.
  • A meeting on 05.08.2014 with Chairman and Vice-Chairman of SIT was held where they were briefed on status of cases in detail, covering main action areas, nature of information received, non-sharing of information by Swiss, problems faced in taking further actions, alternative methods to obtain account details. Therefore, Finance Ministry was regularly briefing SIT on progress.
  • SIT gave certain directions to Finance Ministry officials which are being immediately complied with.
  • Justice MB Shah, who heads the SIT, has also said in the same interview that the government is not trying to protect anyone.

What the UPA did about the SIT

  • When a suggestion was made in 2011 to appoint SIT, UPA’s Solicitor General “vociferously opposed the idea” as per SC. Below is screenshot from SC judgment of 2011 (when UPA was in power)


  • In November 2013, UPA filed an application in court asking SC to modify its earlier order that appointed SIT. The SIT was asked to investigate the Hasan Ali case and other cases. In other words, UPA, as late as in November 2013, still hoped and tried that the SIT would not be formed. This petition was dismissed by SC.
  • Even on 08.05.2014, UPA, in its last days, filed a review petition, among other things, to cancel important SC orders which constituted the SIT.
  • UPA kept delaying appointment of SIT; eventually, that became Modi government’s first decision in office

What the UPA generally did in its efforts to get back black money



  • SC agrees that recovery of black money has aspects which may or may not be under our control. But UPA did not even attempt measures which were within its powers.


Modi government sought clarification on some aspects of SC’s orders and asked for modification if SC felt necessary in view of clarifications sought

  • In 2011 judgment, SC clearly stated that disclosure of names against whom no evidence of wrongdoing was found was an “instantaneous solution to systemic problem” like black money which would “lead to dangerous circumstances in which vigilante investigations, inquisitions and rabble rousing by masses of other citizens could become the order of the day.” SC said that disclosure was a violation of right to privacy. Only after the State arrives as a prima facie conclusion of wrongdoing based on material evidence, only then would the question arise of the right of the public to be informed. [Paras 73-77]
  • However, in an order dated 1.05.2014, SC said names of 8 people against whom investigations were concluded must be given to the Petitioner (i.e., Ram Jethmalani) despite the fact that no evidence of wrongdoing is found against them. There was a contradiction between the two orders.
  • Unfortunately, the 8 names got into the public domain. Germany wrote to India in June 2014 expressing surprise at this revelation and asked India to provide an explanation of how this information got to be disclosed.
  • Moreover, when Germany had provided information of Liechtenstein bank account holders to India in March 2009, it was clearly under the tax treaty which was subject to confidentiality obligations. Germany wrote that this “information is subject to the confidentiality provisions of the above-named Directive and may only be used for the tax purposes specified therein.”
  • Also, there were some differences with SC’s interpretation of confidentiality clause (meaning of ‘public court proceeding’) in the tax treaties between India and other countries such as Germany from how treaties are interpreted internationally. SC’s interpretation is that information received from foreign countries can be used in hearings before the SC as well. This was against the general and international understanding and interpretation of the confidentiality clause in the treaties which states that information received from countries can only be used for tax purposes and tax assessment/enforcement. Even eminent lawyers such as Shri Harish Salve agree.
  • The combined effect of all of this was that foreign countries with which India still doesn’t have any treaty or arrangement to exchange information, or countries which shared some information had cold feet for further cooperation.
  • For example, India is set to sign the Inter-Governmental Agreement with the US for automatic exchange of information. That IGA is also subject to confidentiality clause. But if SC’s interpretation of confidentiality clause remains different from the international interpretation, there may be delays in signing the IGA. This has several implications on Indian financial institutions. US has signed the same draft with almost 100 countries and, therefore, there is no chance of changing the language.
  • Another example is that India was going to sign a Multilateral Competent Authority Agreement in Berlin today. However, for signing the agreement, the Government of India had to give an international commitment that it would follow international standards for the information received. News reports indicate that India was not able to attend that meet today.
  • Note that all countries which have legally shared information with India so far has been under some treaty or agreement which contains confidentiality clause. There is simply no other way to obtain information.

Modi government chose the harder and riskier option

  • Due to the difficulties in onward process in recovering black money, Modi government had two options.
  • One, it could raise its hands in the air and say there’s a deadlock between what SC interprets and what foreign nations demand. We can’t do anything.
  • Or, it could take a huge perception risk and ask SC to reconsider its contradictory and incorrect interpretation so that the judiciary is on the same plane as the executive and the international fora and that further cooperation is obtained without any problems of interpretation of treaties.
  • It chose the latter, riskier and harder option because it didn’t want to give up on its effort to secure black money stashed away in foreign accounts. This latter option required an application to the SC to clarify / modify its earlier orders which were leading to a critical difference in interpretation.
  • Modi government knew it would suffer from bad perception. But, instead of merely quitting this effort due to mismatch between SC’s interpretation and internationally accepted interpretation, Modi government tried all it could so that cooperation from foreign nations doesn’t reduce or stop.
  • Those doubting Modi government – please ask yourself which option UPA would’ve exercised.

Modi government’s efforts with the Swiss authorities

  • The Swiss government was not willing to provide any information on data of foreign accounts in Swiss banks that was leaked because it considered such data ‘stolen data’ which is obtained in breach of Swiss laws.
  • However, due to ongoing efforts of the Modi government, Switzerland has indicated willingness to provide information in cases where our Income Tax Department has carried out investigation independently of the ‘stolen data’. Therefore, the Swiss authorities may offer cooperation with those cases.
  • Swiss tax authorities have also agreed that they would assist India in obtaining confirmation of genuineness of bank documents and swiftly provide information on requests relating to non-banking information.
  • Swiss authorities have also assured that they will commence dialogue with India for entering into an Automatic Exchange of Information Agreement between India and Switzerland. This is the first time Switzerland has agreed to commence discussions on a treaty such as thisThe UPA never bothered to have an automatic exchange of information arrangement with Switzerland. It is Modi government’s persistent efforts that have yielded progress.



Note: The contents of this “Notes and Releases” has been prepared by a BJP research Team.

Outcomes of Modi’s USA Visit

Outcomes of Prime Minister’s Visit to USA

“Chalein Saath Saath: Forward Together We Go.”


Prime Minister’s Narendra Modi’s visit to the US has been a game-changer – re-setting the Indo-US relationship on an altogether new trajectory. Working through a seemingly impossible schedule of over 35 major engagements, meeting over 100 plus leaders across politics, administration and business – in the 4 days he was in the US.

This was a visit of many firsts:

  • A new element of particularly bonding with the over 3 million strong Indian American community, was also added
  • An unprecedented rock-star reception by a 20,000 strong Indian-American crowd at Madison Square Garden
  • Connecting with 60,000 young Americans in the Global Citizen Festival at Central Park for the cause of poverty eradication
  • Hosted by President Obama over two days, including visiting the Martin Luther King memorial together
  • Two Op-Eds, individually and jointly with President Obama

The Joint Statement reveals an almost point-by-point alignment of the renewed direction of the Indo-US relationship, behind PM’s priorities for India’s development

1.“Make in India”

  • Enhance US FDI and FII investment into India – through a dedicated Indo-US Investment initiative, individually ensuring investment proposals and projects materialize, through a single-point problem resolution and facilitation arrangement
  • Boeing to build – part of the Chinook helicopter mainframe in Bangalore + sustainables for the C-17 aircraft
  • GE to open a new manufacturing and skilling integrated plant in Pune
  • US companies to build next-generation locomotives in India
  • $42 billion US investment into India over the next 5 years – identified by USIBC, from a mere 20% of its membership. If extrapolated, this could translate to possible investments in excess of $100 bn
  • An India-specific initiative by financial companies – to bring sovereign wealth funds and pension funds into India
  • Partnership between RBI and US Fed – for sharing information on regulation and oversight of financial institutions

2. “Next-generation Infrastructure”

  • Infrastructure Collaboration Platform – to enhance participation of US companies in Indian infrastructure projects
  • Digital India Partnership– enhancing digital infrastructure, deploying e-governance and e-services, promoting industry collaboration, and empowering India’s citizens
  • Partnership for upgrading Allahabad (UP), Ajmer (Rajasthan) and Vishakhapatnam (AP) into Smart Cities – bringing in cutting edge US-technology

3. “Swachch Bharat”

  • Water, Sanitation and Hygiene (WASH) alliance for 500 Indian cities – involving USAID as well as US business and civil society (such as the Gates Foundation) – as knowledge partner for our municipalities and state governments for innovation, expertise and technology

4. “Sarve Santu Niramaya”

  • Affordable vaccines programme for developing world diseases such as TB, Malaria and Dengue
  • Collaboration with the US National Cancer Institute to help develop AIIMS-National Cancer Institute at Jhajjar

5.  “Knowledge century”

  • Global Initiative of Academic Networks (GIAN, or Knowledge) – bringing 1,000 American professors from the top 100 Universities each year to teach in Indian Universities. US universities to continue paying their salaries
  • Development of globally benchmarked skill development in India through nation-wide certification systems and new institutions such as Skills Universities
  • Knowledge Partnership with a consortium of top US universities for the new IIT Goa (across curriculum, faculty and facilities) – renewing after 50 years, the powerful precedent of the setting up of IIT Kanpur in 1960 with US assistance
  • Collaboration in developing India’s new National Defence University
  • NASA-ISRO collaboration across domains – Mars Joint Working Group + Synthetic Aperture Radar (NISAR) mission

6. “Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam”

  • Tourist Visa on Arrival and E-travel authorization for US visitors in India
  • India to join the Global Entry Programme to facilitate easy entry of Indian nationals to the USA
  • Lifetime validity of Indian Visa and removal of requirement of periodic reporting to a police station – for PIOs

7. “Clean Energy & Sustainability”

  • Collaboration for up-gradation of India’s National Institutes of Wind, Solar and Bio-energy
  • New Energy Innovation labs
  • Clean Air partnership between Central Pollution Monitoring Board and US Environment Protection Agency
  • Clean Energy Finance Forum for promoting investment and trade in clean energy projects
  • $1 billion concessional financing from US EXIM bank for Indian Renewable Energy Development Agency (IREDA)
  • US-India Climate Fellowship Program
  • Special contact group to resolve all Civil Nuclear issues – including liability and administrative issues
  • Partnership for India’s National Parks – exchanging experience of conservation, facilitation of visitors, research, training and outreach

8. “Zero Tolerance on Security threats”

  • Stronger partnership against Terror – joint and concerted efforts for dismantling of safe havens and disrupting financial and tactical support of – D-Company, Haqqani network, Jaish-e-Mohammed and LeT  (many of these threats to India acknowledged for the first time)
  • Cooperation across domains – including increased intel-sharing, as well as access to cutting-edge technology and tactics (eg. Mine-Resistant Ambush Protected vehicles, countering IEDs, navy vessels and counterfeit currency)

9. “Natural Allies”

  • US support for India’s increase voice and vote in the IMF and World Bank
  • US affirmation of India meeting Missile Technology Control Regime (MCTR) requirements, and it’s readiness for membership in the Nuclear Suppliers’ Group (NSG)


This visit by the Prime Minister has the potential to redefine India’s image in the world. Modi used his inimitable style to not only affirm, on the most prominent global stage, that India’s rise is inevitable but that it is also and opportunity for the world to become a partner in this rise for mutual benefit.



Note: The contents of this “Notes and Releases” has been prepared by a BJP reserach team.


#CoalGate Judgment Extracts

Brief Introduction

The Supreme Court judgment on coal block allocations, which came to be ubiquitously termed as #CoalGate because of overwhelming stench of corruption during UPA years, was delivered on 25th August 2014. The judgment makes important legal and procedural pronouncements, and in effect has termed all the allocations made under the policy, first framed by 1993 Congress government led by under P.V. Narasimha Rao, as illegal.

However, some important points to note are:

1. On Policy: Since the SC has termed the policy framed in 1993 itself as unsound, since no criteria was defined as to who will get coal block and who will not, hence all allocations made under that policy, including in NDA period, have been judged to be illegal.

2. NDA period allocations: Only 7 allocations done in NDA period have been judged to be illegal. In each of these allocations, there were recommendations by respective state governments, and detailed reasons were given as to why block X was allotted to company A and why block Y was not allotted to company B. This is why, although the allocations have been judged to be illegal since their founding policy itself is flawed, no criminal proceedings are underway on these decisions.

3. UPA period allocations:  During UPA period, 168 allocations now stand judged as illegal. Criminal proceedings are underway in many of these cases. As the Supreme Court notes, most of these allocations were capricious / done with mala fide intention / totally arbitrary / screening committee does not record any reasons as to why decisions were made a particular way and so on. Indeed the SC calls some of the companies, who got coal blocks in UPA period, as shady.

In many cases companies got coal blocks without any recommendation by respective state government ( unlike NDA period allocation) and in many other cases recommendations made by state governments were overlooked. The screening committee DID NOT allot coal blocks to 8 companies which were recommended by Ministry of Power but allotted to 11 others without any recommendation. No reasons were mentioned in screening committee minutes for such arbitrary decisions. This is why criminal cases are now underway in many of these cases.

4. Difference between NDA / UPA: Essential difference between NDA and UPA period allocations :Policy framed by Congress govt in 1993 itself was unsound hence it affects allocations made by NDA period also but SC itself makes scathing observations about dishonest and and criminal implementation of same during UPA period. It is this essential difference between the two periods.


Verbatim extracts from SC order

Page 56:

Moreover, from 2006 even the requirement of end-use project was done away with and the Central Government allowed companies to apply and obtain coal blocks, and it was stated that the coal mined from these blocks would be transferred to an end-user company. Thus, the basic minimum statutory requirements were not adhered to and followed in making allocation of coal blocks.”


Page 57:

Screening Committee did not follow any objective criteria in determining as to who is to be selected or who is to be rejected. The minutes of the Screening Committee meetings do not show that selection was made after proper assessment. There is no evaluation of merit and no inter se comparison of the applicants. No chart of evaluation was prepared. The determination of the Screening Committee is apparently subjective. It is no coincidence that a large number of allottees are either powerful corporate groups or shady companies linked with politicians and ministers or those who came with high profile recommendations. Most of these allottees were in fact ineligible for allocation; they had misrepresented the facts and were not more meritorious than others whose claims have been rejected, but by serious manipulations and abuse, they were able to get the coal blocks.

Page 65:

Learned Attorney General has fairly admitted that the minutes of the Screening Committee meetings in the third and fourth periods [29th June 2006 – 3rd July 2008] do not contain the particulars showing consideration of each application.


Page 84-85:

During this period [8 year period leading up to 2nd Feb 2012], many coal blocks were allocated giving rise to present controversy, which was avoidable because competitive bidding would have brought in transparency, objectivity and very importantly given a level playing field to all applicants of coal and lowered the difference between the market price of coal and the cost of coal for the allottee by way of premium which would have accrued to the Government.

Pages 93-96:

Pertain to the period 1997-99, and contain detailed case-by-case analysis by Screening Committee on why certain blocks could or could not be allocated to certain companies [i.e. no arbitrariness]

Page 97-98:

On 18th-19th June 1999, the Screening Committee decided as follows:

(i) The Administrative Ministries will assess the soundness of the proposals in consultation with the State Govt. before sending their comments/ recommendations to the Screening Committee for consideration of allotment of a captive mining block; and


(ii) The Administrative Ministries should consult State Governments as well as use their own agencies for assessing the progress of the implementation of end use plants for which blocks have already been allotted by the Screening Committee and send a report to the Screening Committee for further action.”

 Page 102:

In the 18th meeting held on 5th May 2003… The Chairman of the Committee put the following few general guidelines for consideration:


(i) The blocks in captive list should be allocated to an applicant only after the same have been put in the public domain for a reasonable time and not immediately upon their inclusion in the list of block identified for captive mining, so as to give an opportunity to interested parties to apply for the same and make the process more transparent. The need for giving very cogent and detailed reasons before withdrawal of a block from captive list by CIL was also emphasized.


(ii) The Administrative Ministries were requested to appraise the projects from the point of view of the genuineness of the applicant, techno-economic viability of the project and the state of preparedness/progress in the project while indicating the quantity and quality of coal requirement of the project and recommending allocation of captive block to the applicant. In case there were more than one applicant for the same block the Administrative Ministry should rank them based on the project appraisal and the past/track record of the applicant without necessarily naming the block to be allotted. This would facilitate the Screening Committee in allotting a suitable block to the applicant more objectively.


Page 107-108:

The compilation volume contains materials relating to recommendations made by the Screening Committee for allocation of coal blocks to private companies pursuant to its 22nd meeting to 30th meeting held between 04.11.2003 and 18.10.2005…

if all other factors (like suitability of coal grade, techno-economic viability/feasibility of the project, state of preparedness of the project, etc.) were equal but a careful look at these guidelines show that they do not lay down any criterion for evaluating the comparative merits of the applicants. As a matter of fact, the guidelines applied by the Screening Committee are totally cryptic and hardly meet the requirement of constitutional norms to ensure fairness, transparency and non-discrimination.


There is no comparative assessment of the merits of the applicants. There is so much of ad-hocism in consideration of the applications that in every meeting, the guidelines were altered.

Page 110:

The Committee noted that the transfer modalities were yet to be worked out in details. The Screening Committee in 24th meeting [9th Dec 2004] noted the particulars of each applicant but how each applicant met such parameters is neither mentioned nor are they discernible.

 Page 112:

The Screening Committee decided [on 10th Oct 2005] that for each such block, one applicant company who had the highest stake and which was likely to take up proper mining could be designated the leader company and allocated the block and a group of other companies could be nominated as associate companies for supply of coal by the leader company to these designated associates. In our opinion, such procedure is apparently in contravention of the statutory provision contained in Section 3(3)(a)(iii) of the CMN Act.


The rules of game were changed to adjust large number of applicants whose applications would have been otherwise rejected as their coal requirement was far less than the coal available in the coal block. However, in order to accommodate these applicants, a novel idea of choosing a leader company and associate companies was evolved which, as indicated above, is impermissible under the CMN Act.


Page 128:


As regards Jogeswar coal block, the Committee in view of the comments of the representative of the Government of Jharkand decided not to recommend allocation of that block in favour of any applicant for the time being. The minutes of 32nd meeting 29th-30th June 2006 do not show how and in what manner the applications of those companies were considered which did not come for presentation. There is no comparative assessment or evaluation of the applicants. Why the chosen companies have been preferred over the others is not discernible?


Merely because there were large number of applicants, it did not mean that the consideration of each applicant could not have been recorded or comparative assessment or evaluation of the applicants could not have been made. What are the reasons for recommending three blocks jointly in favour of more than one company are neither recorded nor disclosed in the minutes. The recommendations for allocation of blocks jointly in favour of two or three companies, as indicated earlier, are not in conformity with the CMN Act. Rather, they are in contravention thereto.


Page 133-134:

It is pertinent to notice that some of the companies like Chaman Metallics Ltd.,

which was recommended by the Screening Committee for Kosar Dongergaon block had no recommendation by the State Government (Maharashtra). Similarly, Pushp Steel and Mining Ltd., which was recommended for Brahmpuri block had no recommendation from the State Government (Madhya Pradesh) and so also Kohinoor Steel (P) Ltd. for Mednirai coal block had no recommendation from the State Government (Jharkhand). The minutes do not disclose in what manner the merits of the companies which were chosen for recommendation were determined. Even particulars of the applicants individually are not noticed. There is no indication at all in the minutes of 33rd meeting and 34th meeting or the meeting held on 22.09.2006 when final decision that the conditions laid down in the guidelines are met by these companies was taken. Twenty three companies were recommended by the four State Governments while fifteen companies were finally recommended for allocation by the Screening Committee but the reasons therefor are not discernible at all. The minutes also do not disclose the criterion which the Screening Committee applied in selection of the fifteen companies and the reason for allocating twelve blocks to fifteen companies. M/s. Grace Industries Limited was recommended allocation of a coal block although that company had no recommendation/categorization.



Page 135:

Many of the companies selected by the Screening Committee [June/July 2007] had no recommendation from the State Government or from the Ministry of Power and CEA and some of them had no recommendation either from the State Government or the Ministrya of Power and CEA at all.


Page 140:

The Screening Committee, as a matter of fact, did not select eight companies which were recommended by the Ministry of Power but selected eleven companies which were not recommended by Ministry of Power.


Page 142:

The minutes of 36th meeting do not contain the particulars showing consideration of each application. There is no assessment of comparative merits of the applicants who were selected for recommendation. The minutes do not disclose how and in what manner the selected companies meet the norms fixed for inter se priority. Many of the selected companies were neither recommended by the State Government nor by the Administrative Ministry.


Note: The contents of this “Notes and Releases” has been prepared by Kartikeya Tanna and a person who shall remain unnamed for helping frame this blog for correct reading of the SC judgement.