In the last issue of Update, I had an occasion to delve deep into the Bhushan Steel imbroglio. Here comes the news of the Supreme Court’s recall of its own liquidation order – a moment that could ripple far beyond one corporate saga. The Supreme Court’s decision to recall its May 2, 2025, verdict ordering the liquidation of Bhushan Power & Steel Ltd (BPSL) is more than a procedural correction – it is a statement about the balance between legal purity and economic pragmatism. The recall of Bhushan Steel verdict signals the apex court’s willingness to weigh human and economic fallout alongside statutory compliance. By reopening a case where a resolution plan had been implemented years ago, the Court is also challenging the long‑held principle that insolvency resolutions, once executed, are sacrosanct. The judgment, in one sense, re‑centres the debate on whether courts should second‑guess the commercial wisdom of the Committee of Creditors, a pillar of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) framework. This recall underscores a judicial readiness to intervene when the process is tainted by “material illegality” – even if it means unsettling the already settled transactions. For lenders, investors and resolution applicants, it is a reminder that compliance is not a mere box‑ticking exercise; it is the foundation of deal durability. With this judgment one can expect heightened scrutiny of the resolution plans. The Court is also signalling that livelihoods will not be permitted to suffer collateral damage in corporate clean‑ups. The IBC’s promise of speed and certainty now has a new caveat – justice may take precedence over closure. In corporate law, finality is a sacred principle. But the Supreme Court’s recall of its own liquidation order for Bhushan Power & Steel Ltd (BPSL) shows that even the ‘closed’ cases can be prised open – when justice demands it. This is not just a twist in one of India’s longest insolvency sagas. It is a watershed moment that recasts the very DNA of the IBC. The Court’s pivot rests on a stark truth – economic justice sometimes trumps procedural neatness. With 25,000 jobs hanging in balance, the ruling elevates the human cost of liquidation from a footnote to a headline! Until now the Committee of Creditors’ decisions were almost unassailable – a fortress in the IBC architecture. This judgment carves a window into that fortress, asserting that when the process is marred by “material illegality,” courts may act – even years after implementation. India’s insolvency framework was hailed for speed and finality. The Bhushan recall injects a new variable: substantive fairness. Global capital will have to recalibrate for a market where deals must satisfy not just the law, but the judiciary’s conscience.
Justice BV Nagarathna was in the news recently that attracted considerable attention particularly from the legal fraternity. She is part of the Supreme Court’s Collegium that clears the names of judges to the higher courts in India. Justice Nagarathna opposed the appointment of Justice Vipul Pancholi who was recommended for appointment to the Supreme Court based on a series of substantive objections regarding seniority, regional representation, nature of his transfer, and the potential impact of his appointment on judicial credibility itself. She pointed out that Vipul Pancholi ranks 57th in the All-India seniority list of High Court judges, pointing out that several more senior and equally meritorious judges have been overlooked in his appointment. She emphasised that this circumvents the established principle of seniority which has long been the logic of judicial appointments and succession planning in the Indian judiciary. She suggested that the confidential minutes and materials of his transfer should be called for and scrutinised before proceeding with his elevation. She expressed concern that elevating Justice Pancholi would mean that the Gujarat High Court becomes overrepresented in the Supreme Court, as it already has two sitting judges from Gujarat, while other High Courts remain underrepresented. This, she argued, would further imbalance regional representation at the apex court. Justice Nagarathna asserted that appointing a judge with a controversial transfer history and lower seniority would be counterproductive to the administration of justice and “could put the credibility of the Collegium system itself at stake.” She warned that such decisions, particularly for a candidate who may eventually become a Chief Justice of India due to long tenure, could erode public trust in the fairness and integrity of judicial appointments. She also recommended that her note of dissent be uploaded publicly for transparency, in line with the Supreme Court’s practice, but this was not done by the Collegium administration, raising further concerns about openness in the selection process. At a time when there is a clamour for comprehensive reform on the Collegium system in the selection process itself has not gone unnoticed. Justice Nagarathna’s stance could be seen as a call to reform the collegium system. Her critique resonates with civil society groups like the Campaign for Judicial Accountability and Reforms (CJAR), which also questioned the lack of transparency and potential favouritism in recent appointments. In essence, her dissent is a reminder that judicial appointments are not just about individual merit – they reflect the values and balance of the institution itself. It is a moment that invites deeper reflection on how India’s highest court chooses its future leaders.
Way back on 20th February 2020 in the largest stadium in the world that can accommodate more than one lakh spectators, the heads of the largest and the oldest democracies took a lap around the stands to the thunderous applause of the packed audience. The two leaders openly displayed their bromance to the entire world. This friendship has only grown since then – till today. These leaders were the ultimate image of bonhomie. After a sustained period of friendship between the two leaders, it has finally ended. Donald Trump and his cronies are now accusing India of cheating. Peter Navarro is the trade counsellor to the President who has his ears too . He is now the President’s favorite attack dog against India. Navarro takes this assignment quite seriously. Of late, he has been accusing India of funding Russia’s war in Ukraine by purchasing discounted Russian crude. Navarro claims that India’s refining of Russian oil benefits Moscow and undermines its partnership with the US. Justifying Washington’s newly imposed 50 per cent tariffs on Indian imports, Navarro said that Indian refiners working with “silent Russian partners” were making huge profits by refining Russian oil and selling it in international markets while “Russia pockets hard currency to fund its war in Ukraine”. According to Navarro “Everybody in America loses because of what India is doing. The consumers and businesses and everything lose, and workers lose because India’s high tariffs cost us jobs and factories and income and higher wages, and then the taxpayers lose, because we got to fund Modi’s war,” Navarro said. When you have friends like Navarro you need no enemies! You cannot accuse Navarro of not knowing India well. He does. Caste sells more than Coke in India. If you doubt this statement, sample this. Brahmins are profiteering at the expense of Indian people. Let me not glorify this statement by commenting on it.
All eyes are today on this year’s meeting of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) and for good reason. This is an international organisation of countries drawn from all continents and has been one looking for an objective for its own relevance. Then came a man called Donald Trump who provided the much-needed objectives for the SCO. At no point in time in the past the SCO had assumed so much of importance. If there are member countries who are hunting for allies to counter Trump’s hegemony, there are others who looking for honourable exit to some of the interminable wars as in Ukraine and those who are trying to raise their voice against the genocide perpetrated by countries like Israel with the tacit support of the United States. Member countries did not have to search for aims and objectives for the SCO. The objectives have come searching for the SCO. For India this is a pivotal moment. After being humiliated by Trump, Narendra Modi took the next available flight to Shanghai to start anew. For once both India and China have found common ground at Shanghai, both having been the victims of the vicissitudes of the mood swings of the unpredictable man who occupies the White House today. Till date these meetings at Shanghai had been nothing more than a diplomatic chore for India. Not anymore. This meeting at Shanghai could not have come at a better time. Modi today on the global stage, has become a seasoned player ever since he had become Prime Minister. He projects a distinctive and multifaceted personality on the global stage – one that blends assertiveness, warmth, and strategic depth. His diplomatic style is often described as both personalised and purposeful. Donald Trump in his personal pursuit of a Nobel prize made a mistake when he unilaterally inserted himself in the short war between India and Pakistan and tried to take credit for the peace that came to prevail consequent to a cease fire. This, he claimed, was because he could bull doze peace on the warring parties. Third party mediation in border disputes between India and Pakistan is something that is against India’s stated policy . It also at one level undermines the carefully crafted image of Modi when it comes to Pakistan. For Modi, it is a red flag like no other. That was not all. Singling out India for a punitive tariff of 50% was the limit. It did not take long for a slighted and humiliated Modi to book the first available flight to Shanghai. At SCO there was a notable departure from past rhetoric between China and India. Both nations asserted their right to independent diplomacy rejecting alignment dictated by third-party pressures, especially from Washington. Modi and Xi described their meeting as a “restart” of bilateral ties, signalling a deliberate shift from past border tensions. The Trump administration’s tariffs and accusations such as Peter Navarro’s claim that Ukraine was “Modi’s war” due to oil imports has alienated New Delhi. With the US cozying up to Islamabad and pressuring India on multiple fronts, China emerged as a pragmatic counterbalance. At the meeting Modi reiterated the need for a “multipolar Asia and world,” aligning with China’s critique of US hegemony. India’s engagement with China and Russia signals a move away from dependency on Western blocs. Closer ties with Beijing could help offset trade losses from US tariffs. A thaw in Sino-Indian relations may reduce border tensions and open avenues for cooperation on terrorism and trade. With the Galwan Valley clash and ongoing border disputes still casting a shadow, any rapprochement remains fragile. India’s pivot may strain its role in the US-led Quad alliance, potentially weakening its strategic leverage in the Indo-Pacific. Modi’s overtures to China could face criticism at home, especially from constituencies wary of Beijing’s regional ambitions. This pivot, on the part of India, while pragmatic, is emblematic of India’s evolving foreign policy doctrine, one that seeks balance, autonomy and resilience in a turbulent global landscape.
Intel, the chip company was in trouble. Intel is one of the world’s oldest and most influential semiconductor companies, known for its x86 architecture and dominance in CPUs. Its chip offerings span several categories. The company needed fresh infusion of capital, and it had nowhere to go. The American President when he was not busy imposing tariffs on all and sundry extended a helping hand to this ailing company. The US Government converted $8.9 billion in CHIPS Act and Secure Enclave grants into a 9.9% equity stake in Intel. The purchase was made at a discounted rate of $20.47/share, below market value. The funding must be spent by the company within the U.S., supporting domestic manufacturing and R&D. The US government thus ensured U.S. control over advanced chip manufacturing was retained. Importantly for the US it reduced dependency on Taiwan and South Korea for chips. Trump administration took pains to project that it supports job creation and tech leadership. As American businesses go, this move signals a paradigm shift. The U.S. government is no longer just a regulator; it is now a stakeholder in critical tech infrastructure. For Intel, it is a lifeline and a vote of confidence. For competitors like AMD and Nvidia, it raises questions about favouritism and market distortion. How government involvement affects decision making process in the company remains to be seen. But Intel survives!
The latest issue of the Economist carried an article that caught my attention. An Indian actor getting covered in The Economist is a unique achievement. But then, to call Rajinikanth a movie star is like calling the monsoon a drizzle. He is not merely an actor – he is a cultural force, a living legend whose presence transcends cinema and spills into ritual, folklore and mass psychology. Born Shivaji Rao Gaekwad, a Marathi-speaking bus conductor from Bengaluru, Rajinikanth rose to become Thalaivar – the undisputed leader of Tamil cinema. His rise was not just meteoric; it was mythic. With signature gestures like the cigarette flip, the sunglasses toss, and his gravity-defying walk, Rajinikanth added style into style itself. His fans do not just admire him – they worship him. Across Tamil Nadu, temples have been built in his name, and his film releases are celebrated with milk abhishekams and chants that liken him to a Hindu deity. For many, his dialogues are scripture, and his screen presence is darshan. No less. Yet, beneath the spectacle lies a man known for humility, generosity and spiritual depth. Rajinikanth’s enduring appeal lies in this paradox: a superstar who never tried to be one and a man of the masses who became their god.
Thank you.
Venkat R Venkitachalam
