The Tax Assurance Commissioners First Annual Report: Fill & Download for Free

In Arizona our Supreme Court did a year long study and issued a report with recommendations that was sent to our legislature. A very reasonable report by serious, professional, credentialed people making recommendations that would make a significant impact in the system. Here is the executive summary so you can see it’s not frivolous in any way. Unfortunately it had no success in 2017. They will try again in 2018 but it’s a hard battle in our legislature.How long will it take? If we do not change our elected officials, it will take a long time. If there is no vested interest in reducing prison occupancy, it will take a long time. As Americans it is up to us to decide.TASK FORCE ON FAIR JUSTICE FOR ALL:Court-Ordered Fines, Fees, and Pretrial Release PoliciesChair – Mr. Dave Byers, Administrative Director, AOC Vice-Chair – Mr. Tom O’Connell, Pretrial Manager, AOCMr. Kent Batty, Court Administrator, Superior Court in Pima CountyHonorable Michael Robert Bluff, Associate Presiding Judge Superior Court in Yavapai CountyHonorable Maria Elena Cruz, Presiding Judge, Superior Court, Yuma CountyMr. Bob James, Deputy Court Administrator Superior Court, Maricopa CountyMs. Rebecca Steele, Deputy Director, Maricopa County Clerk of CourtHonorable Lisa Roberts , Commissioner, Superior Court in Maricopa CountyHonorable Dorothy Little, President, Arizona Justice of the Peace Association,Payson Magistrate CourtMEMBERSHonorable Antonio Riojas, Presiding Magistrate Tucson City CourtHonorable Thomas Robinson, Tempe Municipal CourtHonorable Don Taylor, Chief Presiding Judge Phoenix Municipal CourtMr. Doug Kooi, Court Administrator, Pima County Consolidated Justice CourtMr. Jeffrey Fine, Court Administrator, Maricopa County Justice CourtsMr. Michael Kurtenbach, Assistant Chief Community Services Division,City of Phoenix Police DepartmentMs. India Davis, Corrections Chief, Pima County Sheriff’s DepartmentMs. Mary Ellen Sheppard, Assistant County Manager Maricopa CountyiiiMr. Ryan Glover, Prosecutor, Glendale City Prosecutor’s OfficeMr. Paul Julien, Judicial Education Officer Education Services Division, AOC Judge Pro TemMs. Kathy Waters, Director, Adult Probation Services, AOC Liaison to Pretrial Advisory CommitteeMr. Jeremy Mussman, Deputy Director, Maricopa County Public Defender’s OfficeMr. Tony Penn, Arizona Judicial Council Public Member RepresentativePresident and CEO, United Way of Tucson and Southern ArizonaHonorable John Hudson, Presiding Judge, Gilbert Municipal CourtMr. Leonardo Ruiz, Deputy County Attorney Maricopa County Attorney’s OfficeMs. Dianne Post, Attorney, Arizona State NAACPMs. Alessandra Soler , Executive Director of the Arizona ACLUAOC Staff:Ms. Theresa Barrett, Court Programs Unit, Manager Court Services DivisionMs. Kathy Sekardi, Senior Court Policy Analyst Court Services DivisionMr. Patrick Scott, Senior Court Policy Analyst Court Services DivisionMs. Kay Radwanski, Senior Court Policy Analyst Court Services DivisionMs. Susan Pickard, Court Specialist, Court Services DivisionMs. Sabrina Nash, Administrative Assistant Court Services DivisionMs. Susan Hunt, Executive Assistant Executive OfficeivJustice for AllReport and Recommendations of the Task Force on Fair Justice for All: Court-Ordered Fines, Penalties, Fees, and Pretrial Release PoliciesExecutive SummaryTASK FORCE PURPOSEOn March 3, 2016, Chief Justice Scott Bales issued Administrative Order No. 2016-16, which established the Task Force on Fair Justice for All: Court-Ordered Fines, Penalties, Fees, and Pretrial Release Policies. The administrative order outlined the purpose of the task force as to study and make recommendations as follows:a) Recommend statutory changes, if needed, court rules, written policies, and processes and procedures for setting, collecting, and reducing or waiving court- imposed payments.b) Recommend options for people who cannot pay the full amount of a sanction at the time of sentencing to make reasonable time payments or perform community service in lieu of some or all of the fine or sanction.c) Recommend best practices for making release decisions that protect the public but do not keep people in jail solely for the inability to pay bail.d) Review the practice of suspending driver’s licenses1 and consider alternatives to license suspension.1 Throughout this report, the terminology for a driver’s license is used to reflect driving privileges or a driver license as defined in the Arizona Revised Statutes.This report describes the work and recommendations of the members of the Task Force on Fair Justice for All and does not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of the members of the Arizona Supreme Court.1Justice for Alle) Recommend educational programs for judicial officers, including pro tem judges and court staff who are part of the pretrial decision-making process.f) Identify technological solutions and other best practices that provide defendant notifications of court dates and other court-ordered deadlines using mobile applications to reduce the number of defendants who fail to appear for court and to encourage people who receive citations to come to court.The Chief Justice asked the task force to file a report and make recommendations to the Arizona Judicial Council (AJC) by October 31, 2016. The report that follows consists of 53 recommendations, plus additional educational and training recommendations for the AJC’s review and consideration.TASK FORCE ABBREVIATED RECOMMENDATIONSThe annotated recommendations are set forth in more detail in the body of the report. Below is an abbreviated list with links to the full recommendations.Authorize judges to mitigate mandatory minimum fines, fees, surcharges, and penalties if the amount otherwise imposes an unfair economic hardship.Use automated tools to determine a defendant’s ability to pay.Create a Simplified Payment Ability Form when evaluating a defendant’s ability to pay.Use means-tested assistance program qualification as evidence of a defendant’s limited ability to pay.Seek legislation to reclassify certain criminal charges to civil violations for first-time offenses.Implement the Phoenix Municipal Court’s Compliance Assistance Program statewide.Conduct a pilot program that combines the Phoenix Municipal Court’s Compliance Assistance Program with a fine reduction program and reinstatement of defendants’ drivers’ licenses.Test techniques to make it easier for defendants to make time payments on court- imposed financial sanctions.Seek legislation that would grant courts discretion to close cases and write off fines and fees for traffic and misdemeanor after a 20-year period if reasonable collection efforts have not been effective.2Justice for AllAllow probationers to receive earned time credit without consideration of financial assessments, other than restitution to victims.Eliminate or reduce the imposition of the 10 percent annual interest rate on any Criminal Restitution Order.Modify court website information, bond cards, reminder letters, FARE (Fines/Fees and Restitution Enforcement) letters, and instructions for online citation payment to explain that if the defendant intends to plead guilty or responsible but cannot afford to pay the full amount of the court sanctions at the time of the hearing, the defendant may request a time payment plan.Authorize judges to impose a direct sentence that may include community restitution (service) and education and treatment programs as available sentencing options for misdemeanor offenses.Expand community restitution (service) to be applied to surcharges, as well as fines and fees, and expand this option to sentences imposed by superior courts.Implement English and Spanish Interactive Voice Response (IVR), email, or a text messaging system to remind defendants of court dates, missed payments, and other actions to reduce failures to appear.Modify forms to collect cell phone numbers, secondary phone numbers, and email addresses.Train staff to verify and update contact information for defendants at every opportunity.Provide information to law enforcement agencies regarding the importance of gathering current contact information on the citation form.After a defendant fails to appear, notify the defendant that a warrant will be issued unless the defendant comes to court within five days.For courts operating pretrial service programs, allow pretrial services five days to re-engage defendants who have missed scheduled court dates and delay the issuance of a failure to appear warrant for those defendants who appear on the rescheduled dates.Authorize the court to quash a warrant for failure to appear and reschedule a new court date for a defendant who voluntarily appears in court after a warrant has been issued.3Justice for AllConsider increasing access to the court (e.g., offering hours at night, on weekends, or extending regular hours, taking the court to people in remote areas, and allowing remote video and telephonic appearances).Develop and pilot a system that communicates in English and Spanish (such as video avatars) to provide explanations of options available to defendants who receive tickets or citations.24. Clarify on court informational websites and bond cards that defendants may come to court before the designated court date to resolve a civil traffic case and explain how to reschedule the hearing for those defendants who cannot appear on the scheduled dates.25. Implement the ability to email proof of compliance with a law—such as proof of insurance—to the court to avoid having to appear in person.26. Suspend a driver’s license as a last resort, not a first step.Make a first offense of driving on a suspended license a civil violation rather than a criminal offense.Provide courts with the ability to collect and use updated contact information, such as a database service, before issuing a warrant or a reminder in aging cases.Authorize courts to impose restrictions on driving—such as “to and from work only”—as an alternative to suspending a driver’s license altogether.Prior to or in lieu of issuing a warrant to bring a person to court for failure to pay, courts should employ proactive practices that promote voluntary compliance and appearance.Support renewing efforts to encourage the Conference of Chief Justices and the Conference of State Court Administrators to approach Congress about extending the federal tax intercept program to include intercepting federal tax refunds to pay victim restitution awards, with an exception for those who are eligible for the earned income tax credit.Promote the use of restitution courts, status conferences, and probation review hearings that ensure due process and consider the wishes of the victim. Provide judicial training on the appropriate use of Orders to Show Cause in lieu of warrants and appointment of counsel at hearings involving a defendant’s loss of liberty.Coordinate where possible with the local regional behavioral health authority to assist the court or pretrial services in identifying defendants who have previously been diagnosed as mentally ill.4Justice for AllRevise mental health competency statutes for expediting mental competency proceedings for misdemeanor cases.Bring together criminal justice and mental health stakeholders in larger jurisdictions to adopt protocols for addressing people with mental health issues who have been brought to court.Consider the use of specialty courts and other available resources to address a defendant’s treatment and service needs, as well as risk to the community, when processing cases involving persons with mental health needs or other specialized groups.Modify Form 6–Release Order and Form 7–Appearance Bond to simplify language and clarify defendants’ rights in an easy-to-understand format.Eliminate the use of non-traffic criminal bond schedules.Amend Rule 7.4, Rules of Criminal Procedure, to require the appointment of counsel if a person remains in jail after the initial appearance.Clarify by rule that small bonds ($5-100) are not required to ensure that the defendant gets credit for time served when defendant is also being held in another case.Authorize the court to temporarily release a “hold” from a limited jurisdiction court and order placement directly into a substance abuse treatment program upon recommendation of the probation department.Expedite the bond process to facilitate timely release to treatment programs.43. Request amendment of A.R.S. § 13-3961(D) and (E) (Offenses not bailable; purpose; preconviction; exceptions) to authorize the court, on its own motion, to set a hearing to determine whether a defendant should be held without bail.Encourage the presence of court-appointed counsel and prosecutors at initial appearance hearings to assist the court in determining appropriate release conditions and to resolve misdemeanor cases.Request the legislature to refer to the people an amendment to the Arizona Constitution to expand preventive detention to allow courts to detain defendants when the court determines that the release will not reasonably assure the appearance of the person as required, in addition to when the defendant’s release will not reasonably assure the safety of other persons or the community.Eliminate the requirement for cash surety to the greatest extent possible and instead impose reasonable conditions based on the individual’s risk.5Justice for All47. Eliminate the use of a cash bond to secure a defendant’s appearance.48. Expand the use of the public safety risk assessment to limited jurisdiction courts.49. Encourage collaboration between limited jurisdiction courts and pretrial service agencies in superior courts in preparing or providing pretrial risk assessments for limited jurisdiction cases.Establish information sharing between a superior court that has conducted a pretrial risk assessment and a limited jurisdiction court when the defendant is arrested for charges in multiple courts and a release decision must be made in multiple jurisdictions.Request the Arnold Foundation to conduct research on the impact of immigration status on the likelihood of not returning to court if released to ascertain whether it is good public policy to hold these defendants on cash bond.Encourage the Arnold Foundation to conduct periodic reviews to revalidate the Public Safety Assessment [PSA] tool as to its effect on minority populations.53. Provide data to judicial officers to show the effectiveness of the risk assessment tool in actual operation.Develop an educational plan and conduct mandatory training for all judicial officers.Create multi-layer training (court personnel and judicial staff) to include a practical operational curriculum.Develop online training modules for future judicial officers.Host a one-day kick-off summit inviting all stakeholders (law enforcement, prosecutors, county attorneys, public defenders, city council and county board members, the League of Towns and Cities, criminal justice commissions, legislature, and presiding judges) to educate and inform about recommendations of the task force and provide direction for leadership to initiate the shift to a risk-based system rather than a cash-based release system.Train judicial officers on the risk principle and the methodology behind the risk assessment tool.Educate judges about the continuum of sentencing options.Educate judges about available community restitution (service) programs and the types of services each offers so that courts may order services that “fit the crime.”Launch a public education campaign to support the adopted recommendations of the task force.6Justice for AllProvide a comprehensive and targeted educational program for all stakeholders (funding authorities, legislators, criminal justice agencies, media, and members of the public) that addresses the shift to a risk-based system rather than a cash-based release system.Request that the Chief Justice issue an administrative order directing the education of all full- and part-time judicial officers about alternatives to financial release conditions. Training and educational components should: Inform judges that cash bonds are not favored. Judges should consider the least onerous terms of release of pretrial detainees that will ensure public safety and the defendant’s return to court for hearings. Train limited jurisdiction court judges to more aggressively allow payment of fines through community service, as permitted by A.R.S. § 13-810.Provide focused judicial education on A.R.S. § 11-584(D) and Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure 6.7(D) about how to determine the amount and method of payment, specifically taking into account the financial resources and the nature of the burden that the payment will impose on the defendant and making specific findings on the record about the defendant’s ability to pay.Update bench books and other judicial aides to be consistent with court-adopted recommendations.INNOVATIONS ALREADY UNDER WAYArizona courts have a history of innovation. As pretrial release issues have arisen, local courts have already begun experimenting with initiatives that support fair justice to all in Arizona. Following are a few projects that highlight promising practices that can be considered for expansion to other jurisdictions.2Compliance Assistance ProgramThe Phoenix Municipal Court has recently implemented a Compliance Assistance Program (CAP) that notifies defendants who have had their driver’s licenses suspended that they can come in to court, arrange a new and affordable time2 See Appendix B for detailed project descriptions of Innovations Already Under Way.7Justice for Allpayment program, and make a down payment on their outstanding fine. More than 5,000 people have taken advantage of the program in the first six months.Interactive Voice Response SystemThe Pima County Consolidated Justice Courts and the Glendale and Mesa Municipal courts have each implemented an Interactive Voice Response (IVR) system to notify defendants of upcoming court dates, missed payments, or the issuance of warrants. Each jurisdiction has experienced a reduction in the number of people failing to appear—up to 24 percent.3Limited Jurisdiction Mental Competency Proceedings PilotA pilot project coordinated through the Superior Court in Maricopa County authorized Mesa and Glendale municipal courts to conduct Rule 11 mental health competency proceedings originating in their courts on behalf of the Superior Court in Maricopa County. The program has reduced the time to process these matters from six months to 60 days.Justice Court Video Appearance CenterThe Maricopa County Justice Court Video Appearance Center represents the first phase of an initiative to significantly reduce the amount of time defendants are held in custody on misdemeanor charges pending appearance in the justice courts.Pima County – MacArthur Safety & Justice ChallengeIn May 2015, Pima County was selected as one of 11 jurisdictions awarded $150,000 from the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation for Phase I of an initiative to reduce over-incarceration by changing how America thinks about and uses jails. The initiative is a competition to help jurisdictions create fairer, more effective local justice systems through bold innovation. Pima County was later awarded an additional $1.5 million to move forward with Phase 2, which involves creating an implementation plan for broad system change.

To me the most underrated Indian is a man who has changed independent India's energy scenario. He is rightly called as a "Father of India's Oil Industry". He is Mr. Keshav Deva Malviya. Unfortnately he is not known to most of the Indians. And his contribution towards building of a nation through a very important aspect of our national life, energy, has been largely ignored.My answer is going to be bit lengthly nevertheless it is too short to describe what this man really was!Here we go ....Oil has impacted nearly every aspect of our modern lifestyle. It, as a substance and as an industry at large, can unarguably be credited with improving the quality of life of modern civilization. It is oxygen of global economy. This mere commodity has shaped the politics of current century and profoundly influenced the way we live. No developmental work or industrial project worth the name can be conceived today without the basic need of oil. Peter Maass rightly said oil is invisible most of the time, but, like gravity, it influences everything we do. No other resource has had such a huge impact on the geography of our world, and the way our societies interact. Nevertheless right from its discovery it has been at the center point of major issues and daunting problems, rendered it as the most controversial resource known to human history. Juan Pablo Perez Alfonso, co-founder of OPEC, accentuated this stark reality by a sarcastical remark saying “Oil is the Devil's excrement”.Oil has dictated the course of history, predominantly the history of last century. It has been critical in shaping the destiny of nations. India couldn’t be spared from its juggernaut and it has its own story to tell, no less mysterious. India’s oil history is a dream seen & maneuvered by visionaries, enthralled by many and brought into the reality by numerous unknowns. This epic saga is an entrancing tale of courage, conviction and commitment. This article is a modest attempt to reflect upon these sublime pages of our national life.“History is important because it teaches us about past. And by learning about the past, you come to understand the present, so that you may make educated decisions about the future.” – Richelle MeadStart of The India’s Oil Voyage:Drive of India towards oil can be traced all the way back to mid-19th century. India’s potential of oil reserve was first reported in 1825. Lt. R Wilcox, who penetrated the jungles of upper Assam, recorded the existence of oil in his memories and military dispatches. Other military officers like Major A. White, Capt. Francis Jenkins, and Capt. P.S. Hanney they all recorded at different times oil exuding from banks of the river Dehing. In 1865 officer belonging to Geological Survey of India, Mr H B Medicott prepared a report and provided evidential proofs about oil reserves while looking for coal in Upper Assam. First attempt to catch this black gold was made by McKillop Stewart Company in 1866, just seven years after the World's first commercial oil well was drilled in 1859 in USA. But this experiment could not be fructified commercially. However the second well struck little oil at Margharita. The technology involved then was in very nascent stage and it was not very different from digging wells for water. Later on Assam Railway and Trading Company (ARTC) jumped into exploration business. This company was basically doing the works of laying rail tracks in dense forest areas of Assam. Oil exploration was not its core business but they had mercantile wisdom to gauge the opportunities lies in the future. Subsequently they applied for permission of oil exploration to Assam commissioner. In 1867 W L Lake, an engineer with ARTC was supervising a large group of men engaged in digging work for laying the tracks. This Canadian born Englishman, who was shouting at their workers “Dig Boy, Dig” noticed one strange thing. Elephants affianced in works had their feet noticeably oily with a heavy odor. Lake did not let this bizarre thing go overlooked. He ordered deep digging of the land and as they progressed further Lake’s suspicion of having oil source in it became more pronounced. This incident later resulted into two historic things - getting the first commercial oil well to our large subcontinent in 1889 and the name to the land which was remained neglected so far – Digboi.This was the very dawn of oil industry in this part of the world. India's petroleum industry thus started taking shape with the commercially successful discovery of oil in Digboi. ARTC had also erected a small refinery in 1893 at Margharita to refine the oil produced at Margharita well. The owners of ARTC in England soon realized that rails, trade and oil exploration could not go well together hand in hand. So they gave birth to separate wing named Assam Oil Company (AOC) exclusively to look into the oil business interests in north eastern part. Soon a new refinery was set up in Digboi and was commissioned in 1901 and supplanted the earlier refinery unit at Margharita. The Digboi refinery, commissioned in December'1901, is today oldest operating refinery in the world. The present capacity of the Refinery is 0.65 MMTPA. Over the 100 years it has undergone a transition from being an age old refinery to one with state-of-the-art technology modestly comparable to modern refinery. IOCL took over the refinery in 1981.At that time AOC was producing nearly 50-60 barrels of oil per day. It had drilled about 80 wells in Assam. Unfortunately company had no scientific methodology for drilling the wells. All efforts were entirely based upon superficial guesses and trial & error method. Finally this was all culminated into what it was destined to. Company was badly hit by waning profits and severe financial crunch. By the time international market became fully aware that eastern Indian soil did contain a good portion of oil reserve. Major oil players, by then, gauged the financial status of AOS and they knew completely that though Company had lost its vigor in the oil business, Indian soil was not devoid of oil. Scientific exploration techniques could well be employed to profitably exploit these oil wells again. The major player who succeeded in encashing this opportunity was – Burmah Oil (now BP). In 1921 UK based Burma Oil took Assam Oil Company under its wings.Independence & Rise of Oil Consciousness:The day Colonel Edwin Drake struck the oil, unknowingly the fate of the world took a different turn. Thereafter this planet has been through all kinds of unscripted dramatic changes with full of greed, blood, ambition, lust for power at one hand while education, scientific advancement, industrialization, liberty at the other end. Oil shaped the world politics, enunciated the outcomes of wars, and transformed the fate & fortunes of individuals and nations. Empires were ruined and new formed. Geographical borders changed. Cultures devastated and reinstated. This happened to the extent that sometimes new modern imperialism is called as oil imperialism. India was just a silent spectator of all this panoramic oil drama played at the larger world canvas.On the eve of independence, three foreign oil companies were operating in India namely Burmah oil company (Now BP), Standard Vacuum Oil Company (STANVAC) (Now Exxon) and Caltex (Now Chevron). These three companies were handling the entire oil business of India with a complete monopoly over marketing & distribution rights. Our petroleum products demand then was to the tune of 2.2 MMT of which about 0.2 MMT was produced in the country and the rest was being imported. Most of the oil demands were met from Persian Gulf sold at prices determined by oil companies. Even after independence Indian government took no serious interest in oil exploration. Our ruler clan took time to realize that fighting and winning independence was more than a political task. It never paid any heed to oil and energy security then. Consciousness about oil dawned upon them when they received the first startling shock by the oil bills completely devastating our first five year plan. We had to pay around 200 million dollars foreign exchange per year. The oil import singly constituted 15% of total import. It was a crumbling situation for a budding nation aspiring to be self-sustained. Except from the Digboi refinery, India did not produce any refined petroleum products. It was entirely dependent on imports, mostly from Anglo-Iranian Oil Company’s refinery in Abadan, Iran.At the global scale oil scenario was shifting very rapidly with geo-political changes. In 1951 Mohammad Mosaddegh, a democratically elected prime minister in Iran, nationalized all major oilfields and refineries including Abadan. That posed serious questions of regular supply of refined products to India. Now Indian government became sentient of importance of oil. Subsequently it asked these three foreign companies to examine the feasibility of installing oil refineries in India. Initially these companies did not respond favorably to this proposal because of lower profit margins. Oil majors were looking at India just as a small consumer. For them crude oil was then available in abundance in West Asia and oil products were regularly shipped to India. They just wanted to reap the profits by only selling petroleum products, on whose distribution they had complete monopoly. Additionally an ownership on the cheapest oil source in West Asia was in their great favor. But Mossadeq’s nationalization of refineries and oilfield forced oil companies to change their mind-set. That was indeed a major blow to the foreign oil companies. They realized the strategic importance of setting up refineries in India. Sudden change in the attitude of oil companies was rightly gauged by Prime Minister Nehru. By the time Panditji’s anti-colonialism was vastly evaporated by the stark realities of cold world war and India’s dangerous dependence on foreign oil.This perilous situation of economy and security consideration compelled India to undertake desperate quest for refineries. Sh N V Gadgil, minister of Works, mines & production, sent Dr. Shantiswarup Bhatnagar, then scientific secretary, on a mission to US & UK to execute the refinery proposals. Oil companies were keen to accept the proposals in the changed developments after the Mosaddegh’s hard hit. Nevertheless oil majors put heavy preconditions to comply with as if they were obliging India. Some of the conditions were - heavy discounts on capitals expenditure, tax rebates, full control over management, complete freedom to import crudes, entire distribution rights of finished products, no price control and moreover government assurance against nationalization for 25 years. Many of self-inflicting and unnecessary conditions were to be accepted. Mr H N Kaul later rightly pointed out that unfortunately there was in India then not a one man who knew anything about oil industry and intricacies of its business. Finally three refineries were set up - two at Mumbai & one at Visakhapatnam. INDO-STANVAC’s 25 kbpsd refinery was commissioned in Mumbai in 1954. Burmah Oil Company’s 30 kbpsd refinery went on stream in Mumbai in 1955. Caltex’s 10 kbpsd refinery went up in Visakhapatnam in 1957. Later on these oil companies started importing all crude oil from their parent companies and selling the refined products in domestic market. India just became a market place for them. Their parent companies got perfect market for their oil and its progenies got the perennial oil supply without much effort. These companies here and abroad flourished by such mutual betterment at the cost of no tangible benefits to India. As a result they lost complete interest in developing oil fields within this country.And He came to change the game forever …..In lieu of heavy import oil bills and shrinking forex reserve Indian economy was on the verge of collapse. Serious economic crisis was impending. In the decade of 60 India took an ambitious industrialization programme, which necessitated immense energy pool. America and rich European countries were not in mood to help India, might be because of India’s non-aligned stance and then leadership’s romantic inclination towards socialism. Cold war was getting more and more intense. Both the superpowers were trying hard to influence and cover maximum of countries under their arms. A first relief came to us when Russia agreed to provide crude oil to India. This all crude oil trade was to take place in Indian rupees. This was a win-win situation to India by which we could save precious 200 million dollars forex to fruitfully invest for other developmental reasons.But the story took the turn for worst when oil companies in India overtly refused to process Russian crude oil. They did not want India go so close to Russia and this would have prevented selling of their crude to India with inflated prices. Refusal of oil companies to Russian oil came as a big eye-opener to Indian government. It increasingly felt that complete dependence on imported oil was not a right approach. We must find oil in our own soil. By the time these foreign oil companies had started propaganda that Indian geology was not suitable at all to bear oil. Not a single drop of oil could be extracted in such kind of geo-structure. USA and UK governments, to upkeep the business interest of their companies, also started advising Indian authorities no matter how hard you try you will never be able to get a drop of oil in your soil. It would be extremely difficult to pull off such a task for an undeveloped country like India. World Bank followed the footsteps and went a mile ahead suggesting not dreaming for oil exploration as it was not a practical decision to block huge amount of money for no gain which only the richest countries could afford.At the backdrop of strong western skepticism, deleterious propaganda and complete cynical condition at home and abroad, if somebody has to be credited for successfully persuading India’s own oil exploration programme, it is unambiguously Sh Keshav Deva Malviya. KD Malviya, a chemical engineer by education, was inducted into Jawaharlal Nehru’s cabinet as a minister of natural resources & Scientific Research. He, who, later on was to change the entire oil game on Indian soil upside down. In 1953 Burmah oil discovered new oil wells at Naharkatia and Moran. Malviya took active role in establishing country’s energy security. He was preparing government for the battle of economic independence to fight on the front of petroleum. There started a long standoff between government of India and Burmah Oil Company over the exploitation of the new oilfields. Finally in 1959, Burmah oil and the government set up Oil India Limited (OIL), a 67:33 joint venture, to exploit the Naharkatia oilfield. In 1961 it became a 50:50 joint venture. During same time STANVAC started exploration work in Assam. In 1953 STANVAC did the agreement with government of India with partnership of 25:75. This gave rise to the birth of Indo-Stanvac Company, which later became as ESSO. ESSO did some superficial exploration work in India and had a little interest to develop the fields here. STANVAC had an access to cheap crude oil from gulf region and if it found oil in India government would force it to exploit it, which STANVAC found it as very low profit making business.Malviya continued sounding of alarm over oil & energy security, which resulted in government of India, taking a bold decision in 1955 to venture into an unchartered territory of domestic oil exploration and free the country from the clutches of western imports. He believed that there could be no freedom for the country’s economy or its defense unless the oil was produced by the country itself. And he knew that domestic oil exploration and its development was the only game in the town! To secure that he didn’t mind to go miles further. Inspite of the receiving horrendous opposition this man single handily got through the oil exploration programme. He envisioned India placed definitively on the global oil map. His vision assumed a tangible shape when Prime Minister Nehru reposed faith in him who laid the foundation of ONGC in the form of Oil and Gas division, under Geological Survey of India (GSI), in 1955. He inspired brilliant geologist & geoscientist like Dr. DN Wadia, Prof. L Rama Rao, to work for the greater cause of nation. He also painstakingly worked to attract the young brilliant brains towards this budding field. This division was mandated to study and find out location where oil reserves could be tapped. Malaviya ordered them to prepare an all-inclusive oil map of nation. With an intense personal involvement he prepared a systematic timeline for oil exploration programme for few years down the line. It takes a great audacity to go against the convinced wisdom of operating oil companies who declared India as a “Hydrocarbon Barren country.”No doubt he was a visionary but he had a realization of the fact that complete dependence on Geological Society was not the right approach. After all oil exploration wasn’t the core business of GSI. This man worked madly in those days. He visited all the possible oil fields to imbibe the unwritten oil business rules and gimmicks; he travelled extensively in India and abroad. Wherever he thought he could get any sort of help he was there to grab it unmindful of his person health or prestige. He left no stone remain unturned to realize the energy dream of India. Finally success yielded to his superlative efforts. Russia agreed to send a group of geologist to help out India in oil mapping & exploration. This high level technical team was led by a legendary geologist Dr. Nikolai A Kalinin. It also included Mr. Tagiev, a well-known name in drilling. The team were to examine possibilities of oil reserves in India and chalk out a programme for exploration. After detailed study Dr. Kalinin submitted a comprehensive report recommending that India should go for oil expedition in majority of its river basins. Moreover he offered to assist during exploration also.Dr Kalinin report was a big setback for oil companies. They bounced back heavily. International oil lobby put its all efforts to disprove Kalinin. Some of influential people in India fall prey to this rejuvenated propaganda and they tried to stonewall Malviya’s efforts. Malviya had to bore the brunt of this intense opposition on own turf too. Finally Indian government decided to take second opinion and sought American & German geologists help to redo the study. Both the study group submitted exactly opposite report what Dr. Kalinin did. This further instigated detractors of Malviya to re-launch their efforts to sabotage his plans by influencing prime minister. But Malviya remained firm on his stand amidst growing opposition to him. He refused to buckle down before the oil majors and further discussed at length with Dr. Kalinin. At the milieu of the recent reports Dr. Kalinin was not ready to retreat even by an inch from his original recommendations. He took Kalinin to Prime Minister Nehru and elaborated him the prediction’s basis of potential hydrocarbon capability. Malviya was so clear and unshakable in his priorities and planning about oil that Nehru found it extremely difficult to refuse. He got fully convinced and turned a complete deaf ear to the western oil experts. He gave green signal to Malviya to go ahead. Prime minister had a great admiration for his drive and commitment.Dr Kalinin also had recommended a much larger organizational set up compared to a small group working on it. Malviya put up the proposal to Cabinet for upgrading of ONG Directorate, which by then, was working as a division of GSI. Subsequently government separated it from GSI and formed as an autonomous body with Malaviya as its chairman. Its charter was to explore, drill and produce petroleum resources throughout the country. Prime Minister bolstered Malviya’s hands by allotting ample amount of money to ONGC undermining the suggestions of planning commission not to do so. Planning commission maintained that putting so much of money in oil exploration was a bet of no worth. Spectre of perturbed western wisdom wasn’t ready to go off from the back of many yet. Nehru remained undeterred. He was ready to play this gamble at the cost of anything. This was a big moral victory for Malviya. Henceforth there was no looking back for him. In March 1956 India inked an agreement with Rumania for the purchase of oil rig and training of Indians in oil technology. Similar agreement was done with Russia when Mr Anastas Mikoyan, Russian Deputy Prime Minister visited India.Let there be Oil & There was oil…….Notwithstanding with all these pulls-pushes & pressures, Malviya didn’t let the oil exploration plan & programme alter anyway. He made to inscribe it as the most important task of Second Five Year Plan. On the basis of data earlier collected two areas were chosen for drilling: Jawalapuri-Janaur in Himachal Pradesh and Cambay in Gujarat. Dr Kalinin team considered Gujarat area more promising so drilling at Cambay was initiated first. The exploration work at Jaisalmer area was also undertaken.Finally the moment came when all the efforts, pain, suffering, humiliation felt vindicated. On 25th July 1958 a well “blew in” at Cambay. Spurting of our own oil by our own efforts left the entire country spellbound. A great sense of incredulity prevailed at the fact that something like this could happen in India and by Indians. Lastly we could make it. Getting there wasn’t easy, indeed it was a little tougher than we now realize. The joy of Malviya and his team knew no bounds. Mr. A N Ghosh, a crucial technical team member, instinctively reverberated the sentiments of all Indians “Cambay is ours. No foreigner can lay claim to this precious treasure. It belongs to nobody else.” In February 1960 drilling was started at Ankaleswar in Gujarat. In just three months on 14 May 1960 oil was found there too. Prime Minister himself came to inaugurate this oilfield. Pandit Nehru christened this oil well as “Vasudhara”. Discovery of Oil field in Ankaleswar, gave the confidence to the country that we can have our own oil Industry. The very next year Sabarmati basin opened its oil at Kalol. Efforts in Assam resulted in repeating the same success story. Brahmaputra valley too, became gracious to untie its petroleum reserve for us. Entire country then was charmed with just one word “oil, oil, oil”. Dr. Kalinin’s oil exploration team operating from the seismic exploration vessel “Akademik Arkhangelsky” mapped the west coast. It had shown the oil-bearing structures of Gujarat extending into the sea. Subsequently in early70’s Bombay high, a magnificent but equally challenging offshore oilfield was discovered using a drillship named “Sagar Samrat”. It was the jewel in the crown. It is the cornerstone of India’s emergence as an oil producer. Along with these, subsequent discoveries of huge oil and gas fields in Western & Eastern offshore changed the oil scenario of the country. Once the oil was discovered government had to think about how to exploit it meaningfully. In 1958 government set up “Indian Refineries” to set up refining installations across India and in 1959 it further announced forming indigenous oil company, Indian Oil Company, which was to circumvent foreign oil companies to distribute oil products in the market. Two years later both the units were merged into “Indian Oil Corporation.” Koyali refinery was built in 1966 with Russian assistance to process crude found in Gujarat. Cochin refinery came up in 1966 with joint investment from Phillips Petroleum and Madras Refinery in 1969 with JV from AMOCO (AMOCO later acquired by BP) & National Iranian Oil Company.And he declared inning….A huge success to domestic oil exploration venturing made Malviya enemy number one to all who didn’t want the same to happen. It had created a fierce vortex in their interest of business. A mountain of a conspiracy out of a molehill was hatched against him. A paltry donation amount to party candidate from a mine owner was made a big scandal by agent politicians and hired newsmen. They spewed venom about him in the entire possible manner they could do. Slanderous & filthy charges of misbehavior and corruption haunted Malviya a lot. In 1963 on moral ground he resigned from Nehru’s cabinet. A man who relentlessly strived for realization of Indian dream to make country oil independent had to sign off his inning in such a dismal way. This was indeed a painful event for a nation. Dr Verghese Kurien had once very aptly commented, “The tragedy of India is that we frequently have no respect for Indians, for Indian efforts and for Indian successes.”Unmindful of personal harm and character assassination, Malviya neither lost his interest in oil or activities of his erstwhile department. Nonetheless he left his office he helped them out in numerous issues on his personal credit. This unsung hero of India’s oil saga died on 27-May 1981 at the age of 77.Research and training institute founded at Dehradun in 1962, which owes its foundation and articulation to Malviya, was christened as “Keshav Deva Malviya Institute of Petroleum Exploration” (KDMIPE) in the year 1981 in his memory.His friend and journalist Ganesh Shukla remembers him “Malviya’s commitment to India's scientific and technological progress was a shining example of patriotism to the younger generation of political workers and a source of strength to the scientific community.”India will remain indebted forever to KD Malviya, whose name will inextricably, remained as a father of India’s oil industry.Pinnacle of Legacy at a glance:India is and shall remain heavily dependent on coal for about half of its primary commercial energy requirements with the other half being dominated by oil and gas put together. Established commercial crude oil & natural gas production in the country is from 7 basins and deep-water areas covering around 5.19 million sq. KM. & 13.5 million sq. KM. respectively. In three other basins covering 1.64 million sq. KM., hydrocarbon discoveries have been made but commercial production is yet to commence. As of we have 122 onshore and 59 offshore Oil and Gas Rigs in operation which cover 682 oil wells, out of which 207 are exploratory wellsPresently ONGC produces nearly 58.9% of indigenous crude oil and 65.8% of country’s gas production, while Oil India Ltd.’s share is 9.2% of indigenous crude oil and 7.4% of gas production. The share of Private/Joint Venture (JV) companies including Reliance in oil and gas production is 32% and 26% respectively. The share of offshore crude oil production was about 48.2% whereas remaining oil production was from 6 states.India’s major problem is its Oil Resource are very less when compared to other countries like USA, Russia, Canada. We have just 1.00% of worlds proved resource of crude oil and 0.75% of worlds proved resource of Natural Gas. It calls for concentrating on overseas expansion and establishment of an alternate fuel to help to cope up with needs of development of the country.Petroleum refinery is a vital link in an energy chain. India with its 22 refineries-17 under public sector, 2 in joint venture and 3 under private sector, currently has a surplus refining capacity. Being the fifth biggest nation in the world in terms of refining capacity, it enjoys 3% of international capacity share. India’s total refining capacity has leapfrogged from a modest 62 MMT in 1998 to 217.18 MMT at present. While domestic demand for petroleum products are 155.4 MMT. Since 2001-02, India is a net exporter of petroleum products. During 2013-14, the country had exported 68.4 MMT of Petroleum products worth US$ 62 billion. India is the largest exporter of petroleum products in Asia since August 2009. India’s current annual crude oil processing capacity is expected to expand to 333 MMT by 2022. India is a third largest importer of the crude oil. 82% of crude oil required is being imported. According to petroleum ministry’s working group report annual crude oil demand in 2013-14 was 189.24 MMT. India’s domestic crude oil production has been around 38 MMT might seem unremarkable. The country’s oil import bill for last financial year stood at $150 billion- growing at an average 14% annually in the past five years. This is accounted for 36% of its total imports.Projected high domestic demand for petroleum products is expected to push further investments into the refining sector. According to the International Energy Agency, India will need investment worth nearly $600 billion over the next 20 years across various segments of its hydrocarbon value chain.References:· The Challenges and Future Prospects of India’s Petroleum Products Refineries; Volume: 4 | Issue: 6 | June 2014 | ISSN - 2249-555X; Pratik P. Valand· Report of Standing Committee on Petroleum & Natural Gas: Lok Sabha Secretariat, Government of India· Mohammad Mosaddegh and the 1953 Coup in Iran (Modern Intellectual and Political History of the Middle East): Mark J. Gasiorowski· Ministry of petroleum and Natural Gas, Government of India· Indian Petroleum Industry final report: Competition Commission of India· Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas Government of India· Planning Commission of India· US Energy Information Administration Report· Executive Intelligence Review, Volume 8, Number 27, July 7, 1981.· Focal Point Newsletter: Raju and Prasad Chartered Accountants; November 2014 Volume 1, Number 9· Russia-India Report: Rakesh Krishnan Simha· KD Malviya and Evolution of India’s oil policy: HN Kaul· India’s ONGC: Balancing Different Roles, Different Goals; Tanvi Madan· Girish Kuber-Ha Tel Nawacha Itihas Aahe: Rajhans Publiation· Crude The Violent Twilight of Oil World: Peter Maass· PetroFed: Paper on “Review of E&P Licensing Policy”· What are the challenges and future prospects of India’s Petroleum products Refineries?: Ruqayah Olowonirejuaro· The Prize: Daniel Yergin· Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited· Oil150, Oil & Gas Industry History, Drake Well Celebration, Petroleum, Oil Heritage· BBC · The Economic Times· business-standards.com· The Guardian

Allegation of corruption and criminal conspiracy.On 20 January 1998 Central Bureau of Investigation filed cases against New Delhi Television #NDTV managing director #PrannoyRoy, former director general of Doordarshan R. Basu and five other top officials of Doordarshan under Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for criminal conspiracy and under the Prevention of Corruption Act. According to the #CBI charge-sheet, Doordarshan suffered a loss of over Rs 35.2 million due to the "undue favours" shown to NDTV as its programme The World This Week (TWTW) was put in 'A' category instead of 'special A' category.#Radiatapes controversy.In November 2010, OPEN magazine carried a story which reported transcripts of some of the telephone conversations of #NiraRadia with senior journalists, politicians, and corporate houses, many of whom have denied the allegations. The Central Bureau of Investigation has announced that they have 5,851 recordings of phone conversations by Radia, some of which outline Radia's attempts to broker deals in relation to the 2G spectrum sale. The tapes appear to demonstrate how Radia attempted to use some media persons including #NDTV's #BarkhaDutt to influence the decision to appoint A. Raja as telecom minister. She always denied her role in this episode with stating her role as simply error of judgment. #BarkhaDutt is being investigated by the #CBI.Allegation of tax fraud.#NDTV, through its foreign subsidiaries, is alleged to have violated Indian tax and corporate laws. NDTV has denied these allegations.The Sunday Guardian ran a story which exposed the NDTV's financial misdemeanours and malpractices in connivance with ICICI Bank. "NDTV-ICICI loan chicanery saved Roys" provides details of how NDTV's major stake holders raised funds by misdeclaration of the value of shares in NDTV. NDTV has denied the allegations and the NDTV CEO replied to the Sunday Guardian along with the threat of "criminal defamation".On 19 November 2015 the #ED served ₹2,030 crore (US$300 million) notice to #NDTV for alleged violations under the #FEMA act, however the company said it has been advised that the allegations are not "legally tenable".#CommonwealthGames Contract.On 5 August 2011 Comptroller and Auditor General of India's report on XIX Commonwealth Games was tabled in Parliament of India. In section 14.4.2 of the report, CAG alleged that while awarding contracts worth Rs 37.8 million for production & broadcasting of commercials for promoting CWG-2010 to NDTV & CNN-IBN, the Commonwealth Games Organizing Committee followed an arbitrary approach. Proposals were considered in an ad hoc manner, as and when a proposal was received; no form of competitive tendering was adopted. The #CAG further said in its report that, "We had no assurance about the competitiveness of the rates quoted by these channels and the need and usefulness of these proposals. From March 2010 to June 2010, the entire pre games publicity and sponsorship publicity was done only on #NDTV & CNN-IBN.Suit against #TAMIndia.This section contains information of unclear or questionable importance or relevance to the article's subject matter.News broadcaster company sued television audience measurement company, #TAMIndia and its global parent firms for over a billion dollars in the Supreme Court of New York, alleging TAM of manipulating ratings in return for bribes to its officials.YOU HAVE TO BE A VERY IMPORTANT PERSON to celebrate a business milestone at the Rashtrapati Bhavan. But considering that Radhika and #PrannoyRoy launched their 24-hour news channel, more than 15 years ago, at the prime minister’s official residence, it seemed apt that, in 2013, the programme to mark the twenty-fifth year of its parent company, New Delhi Television Private Limited, was held at the president’s.The Roys organised a glittering event on a December evening that year, attended by some of India’s most famous and powerful people, many of whom the network was felicitating as the country’s “greatest global living legends.” In attendance were titans of industry (Mukesh Ambani, Ratan Tata, Indra Nooyi, NR Narayana Murthy), sporting legends (Sachin Tendulkar, Kapil Dev, Leander Paes) and film stars (Amitabh Bachchan, Rajinikanth, Waheeda Rahman, Shah Rukh Khan). Once this galaxy of guests was seated, #PrannoyRoy, dressed in a sleek black bandhgala, stepped up to a lectern.“Couple of days ago, I asked Radhika, the founder of #NDTV, what’s kept NDTV going for 25 years,” Prannoy began in his relaxed drawl, a slight smile flickering across his face. Though he is probably the channel’s most recognisable personality, he regularly makes it a point to remind people that the company was founded by his wife, and that he joined her after. “She just said one word: trust,” Prannoy continued. “Your trust. And I am here tonight on behalf of everybody at #NDTV to thank every single one of you for your trust in us.”Two years later, on the evening of 8 November this year, Prannoy called on the audience’s trust again, seated behind his anchor’s desk at NDTV’s studio in south Delhi. This time, he was distinctly less at ease. “Let me start with an explanation and an apology,” he said.His channel had made two mistakes. First, its exit poll had forecast a victory for the Bharatiya Janata Party-led coalition in the Bihar legislative elections, which went on to be won by the Rashtriya Janata Dal-Janata Dal (United)-Congress combine. “There are statistical errors that shouldn’t make them be taken too seriously,” Prannoy said, jabbing the air awkwardly as he spoke, his words tripping over each other. “You get it right, you get it wrong sometimes. That’s the life of a pollster.” This was true. Though exit polls are ostensibly more accurate than pre-election surveys, they can, nevertheless, be skewed for a number of reasons, including sampling errors and dishonest responses from voters.The second error was far more grave. At around half past nine that morning, as the counting of votes had just begun, Prannoy declared that the BJP-led coalition had already won, with a majority tally of more than 140 seats. He then proceeded to moderate a discussion with his panellists, analysing the reasons for this supposedly decisive victory. An hour later, it became clear that he was utterly wrong. The misstep was particularly embarrassing given that Prannoy’s first forays into journalism, in the 1980s, had been as an election analyst; Dorab Sopariwala, a colleague from those days, was one of his guests on the show. Prannoy and his panellists had the unenviable task of reversing all the explanations they had conjured up.On air that evening, Prannoy attempted to explain why things had gone so wrong. “On every counting day, all news channels get data from one agency,” he said. “Again, a very globally respected agency. This morning, the first data that came in to all the news channels was completely wrong.”Although this sounded reasonable, it was, in fact, misleading. The agency in question, Nielsen, subsequently disputed Prannoy’s claim. Numbers may have initially shown a lead for the BJP, but, as an elections expert, Prannoy had to know well that a trend can shift, especially early in the counting process. Other channels, such as CNN-IBN, and even the usually overzealous Times Now, had been more cautious before declaring a winner. Prannoy later won plaudits on social media for his apology, but he had not even acknowledged his blunder.“For NDTV, and for me,” Prannoy said, rounding off his remarks, “our aim is to try to bring you the most objective and accurate news as quickly as possible. So thank you for trusting us, and staying with us.”Prannoy wasn’t exaggerating NDTV’s reputation as a reliable broadcaster. Launched in the 1980s, it was India’s first independent news network, entering the field at a time when the government-run Doordarshan had a monopoly over television content. Beginning with one show on that channel, #NDTV expanded the range of Indian television news, introducing international standards in reportage and presentation. In the process, it gained an early lead in viewership ratings, and dominated the advertising market. NDTV passed on its success to shareholders after the company went public in 2004. As the company grew over the years, from producing one show to launching multiple channels, the Roys groomed a set of reporters and anchors who are today among the country’s most acclaimed and best known television journalists.But even as it adhered by and large to its core editorial principles—rigorous reportage, measured presentation, the absence of overt bias—threats to NDTV’s editorial dominance soon emerged from within its own ranks. Rival channels, some of them led by former staffers, began to overtake the network in the race for ratings, and hoovered up precious advertising revenue.While the network fought a losing battle to retain primacy, it plunged into acute financial distress. In 2008, as the media industry reeled from the global recession, NDTV found itself haemorrhaging money. Towards the end of the decade, the network fired hundreds of staffers in an effort to cut costs.In January this year, a stockbroker named Sanjay Dutt filed a writ petition in the Delhi High Court against the enforcement directorate, or the ED, and the directorate general of income tax investigation. Both are law enforcement agencies: the former is responsible for investigating and prosecuting crimes related to foreign funds and money laundering, and the latter deals with violations of tax laws.Dutt, the director of a financial-services firm named #QuantumSecurities, owned around 125,000 shares in #NDTV, representing a 0.2 percent stake. In 2013, he had filed complaints with these agencies, and other government bodies, alleging that NDTV and its promoters had violated a number of laws. In this year’s writ petition—a request for intervention from a court—he alleged that both agencies failed to act on his complaints.Along with the government bodies, Radhika and Prannoy Roy are also named as respondents in Dutt’s petition. So is Radhika Roy #PrannoyRoy Holdings Private Limited, or #RRPR, an entity that the Roys set up in 2005, and in which they placed shares of the company beginning in mid 2008. This company proved to be central to a convoluted maze of transactions that the Roys carried out from 2008 onward.The affidavits that the two agencies filed in response to Dutt’s petition make for remarkable reading. Both told the court that investigations into NDTV and its promoters have been underway since 2011, in response to a complaint by the BJP parliamentarian Yashwant Sinha. The documents reveal that the Roys are being probed for contraventions of tax laws and laws involving foreign money.#NDTV has not been charged for any of the violations identified in the documents. Nevertheless, these investigations raise the question of whether, despite its reputation as a reliable company, NDTV’s financial core may be rotting.WHEN PRANNOY ROY WAS A YOUNG BOY, his grandfather bestowed on him the nickname “Tempest.” It seems a curious choice of moniker in hindsight, given Prannoy’s famously unflappable anchoring style.That self-assured manner was well in evidence when Prannoy appeared on Indian television screens in 1988 to introduce viewers to a new show, produced by the company he and #RadhikaRoy had set up that same year. “We hope in this show to bring you an analysis of the main world news events of the week,” Prannoy began. “A glimpse of the personalities involved, and, of course, the best of sports.” He wore a grey suit and a shiny tie, and sat in front of a wall of television screens. This was the future of Indian television news.The news magazine programme, called The World This Week, had been commissioned by the director general of Doordarshan, Bhaskar Ghose. The journalist Nalin Mehta wrote in his 2008 book India on Television that Ghose had been handpicked by the then prime minister Rajiv Gandhi “to turn things around for an Indian television glasnost”—by infusing the public broadcaster with fresh talent and ideas. Ghose signed up the Roys, paying them Rs 2 lakh per episode.The Roys, both from Kolkata, met as school students in Dehradun in the 1960s—she at Welham Girls, he at the Doon School. They moved to London to study further, married, and then settled in Delhi to make their careers. Radhika worked on the desk for the Indian Express and India Today. Prannoy, meanwhile, obtained a doctorate in economics, taught at the Delhi School of Economics, and then turned to election analysis, along with his fellow economist Ashok Lahiri, and the market researchers KMS Ahluwalia and Dorab Sopariwala.After taking up Ghose’s offer, the Roys plunged into the media business, albeit with a limited sense of what the future held. The government was still wary of allowing private players in domestic news broadcasting, so only allowed The World This Week to cover international events. “They were terribly clear that you couldn’t do anything in India, or anything close to it,” Mehta quoted Prannoy as saying.Despite this restriction, the show was a “phenomenal success,” Mehta wrote. Until then, he pointed out, viewers had only seen Doordarshan bulletins, which “consisted solely of stiff news readers reading out the news in highly bureaucratised English or Hindi. When pictures were used it was only for a few seconds, and often even these were still pictures.” The Roys “exposed Indian audiences for the first time to international news television practices,” with Prannoy “introducing each story in an easy conversational style, followed by a pre-packaged story using the best pictures with a voice-over to match the visuals.”In December 1989, the year after the company was founded, Prannoy presented an election results show, a precursor to the kind of wall-to-wall coverage that is the norm today. In it, he tracked the defeat of the Congress under Rajiv Gandhi by the National Front coalition, led by the Janata Dal’s VP Singh. Until then, results had been limited to official announcements through the news. This was different—it conveyed the very mood of the nation to viewers.That year also marked a shift in the Roys’ agreement with #Doordarshan. Instead of the channel paying #NDTV for each show it produced, the company became a producer in its own right, paying Doordarshan a fee and selling advertising directly. This boosted the Roys’ profile: from being hired talent, they became media entrepreneurs.But it also led to the Roys’ first run-in with the law. In 1997, a parliamentary committee examined Doordarshan’s finances and found “irregularities” in its dealings with #NDTV—specifically, with regard to the access the company was given to the channel’s technology, and the advertising rates it had been allowed to charge. In 1998, the Central Bureau of Investigation, #CBI filed a first information report against Prannoy and officials of #Doordarshan, including #RathikantBasu, who was the channel’s director general from 1993 to 1996. In 2013, however, the #CBI filed a closure report in a court, which accepted it and quashed all charges in the case.#NDTV produced The World This Week until 1995, when another opportunity presented itself. The government had launched a new channel, which was to carry a mix of programming including feature films and documentaries. NDTV was signed on to produce a daily news bulletin called News Tonight. The Roys broadcast their first show live, but Prannoy recounted in a speech earlier this year that “someone in the PM’s office heard the word ‘live’ and reacted to it like a four-letter word.” Orders flew between government offices, he said, to “stop this private news from being live.” Subsequently, NDTV began recording the show ten minutes ahead of the scheduled broadcast.When India’s media market opened up in the 1990s, NDTV found a foreign investor, signing up with Rupert Murdoch’s #Starnetwork to produce programmes for the channel #StarPlus. Two years later, NDTV and Star signed a five-year deal to launch and run the 24-hour news channel #StarNews. It was inaugurated in February 1998, just ahead of a general election, by Inder Kumar Gujral, then the prime minister of India. An India Today report from that year noted that “a beaming Gujral threw open the doors of 7 Race Course Road,” his official residence, for the event.Indian regulations, even today, dictate that a foreign company can only be a minority partner in a news channel in India. This gave NDTV, then the country’s most prominent private news entity, a powerful bargaining chip with Star, which was then headed in India by Rathikant Basu. In a 2002 piece, the journalist Sucheta Dalal described the Roys’ arrangement with the network as a “sweetheart deal,” in which NDTV was paid “a whopping $20 million a year,” and retained “total control over editorial content and copyright over programming even though Star pays a big chunk of the cost.”This was #NDTV’s heyday. Star’s money gave the Roys an advantage over other channels, such as Aaj Tak and Zee. It allowed them to buy better equipment, produce slicker graphics, and, most importantly, hire the best talent. The Roys’ team by now included many of the journalists who would go on to form the core of #NDTV—among them were Sonia Verma (now Sonia Singh), Vikram Chandra, #BarkhaDutt, #RajdeepSardesai, #SreenivasanJain, #VishnuSom, and #MayaMirchandani. Former NDTV staffers told me the Roys described their company as a “family.” They did not have a human resources department, and made all the hires themselves.Vikram Chandra is the son of Yogesh Chandra, a former director general of civil aviation, himself the son-in-law of Govind Narain, a former home and defence secretary and governor of Karnataka. One of the NDTV’s top business heads, KVL Narayana Rao, is the son of KV Krishna Rao, a former army general who also served as governor of Jammu and Kashmir and other states. Rajdeep Sardesai is the son of the cricketer Dilip Sardesai, and the son-in-law of Doordarshan’s Bhaskar Ghose. Barkha Dutt’s mother, Prabha Dutt, was a senior journalist. #ArnabGoswami is the son of Manoranjan Goswami, an army officer and BJP member; Manoranjan’s brother Dinesh was a union law minister in the VP Singh government. Sreenivasan Jain is the son of the economist Devaki Jain, and LC Jain, a well-known activist, who served as a member of the Planning Commission and as India’s high commissioner to South Africa. Another early hire, Nidhi Razdan, is the daughter of MK Razdan, who has been the editor-in-chief of the Press Trust of India. Vishnu Som is the son of Himachal Som, a former senior diplomat. Chetan Bhattacharjee, a managing editor, is the grandson of Nirmal Mukarjee, a former cabinet secretary and a governor of Punjab.Sandeep Bhushan, who worked with NDTV for almost a decade, told me it seemed more than a mere coincidence that the channel should hire so many “babalog”—people with bureaucratic connections. Bhushan said that he applied to work with the channel around the year 2000, and gave a “damn good interview,” in spite of which he was rejected. “The next time, I went with clout,” he said. Armed with a reference from a bureaucrat, he reapplied for the same post soon after. He was hired.The channel played a part in shaping the politics of the day. A senior journalist who was a crucial part of the Roys’ newsroom for nearly 15 years told me that after launching a 24-hour channel, NDTV would often get complaints from politicians who were not invited to its panels. Everyone wanted to be seen on the channel, he said, and there would be fights among party leaders over who would appear on #NDTV’s shows.In an essay for the book Television in India, Mehta wrote that since the medium required a face for every story, some leaders began to be seen as “credible representatives of their parties or governments, irrespective of their actual place within the hierarchy.” Appearing on television “often helps political careers,” he wrote. “It helps to be seen by cadres and to be seen by senior party leaders.”The senior #NDTV journalist recalled an anecdote from the late 1990s that showed how upcoming politicians could use television to make their presence felt. It was a practice, he said, that guests who appeared on the 9 pm English show “Star Week,” hosted by Barkha Dutt and Rajdeep Sardesai, usually stayed back in the studio to appear on the Hindi show “Ravivar,” hosted by Pankaj Pachauri and Rupali Tewari. Ahead of Atal Bihari Vajpayee’s historic bus ride to Lahore, in February 1999, Jaitley visited the studio to speak on behalf of the party.“Then Narendra Modi came for the first time,” the senior journalist told me. #Modi appeared undaunted by the task he had been assigned, of presenting a party view that diverged from that of its popular prime minister. The host said, “Atali-ji ne yeh bola hai, Atal-ji ne woh bola hai” (Atal-ji said this, Atal-ji said that), the journalist recounted. Modi replied, “‘Atal-ji toh bolte rehte hain’”—Atal-ji keeps saying things. Modi “lambasted” Vajpayee for the upcoming trip, the journalist recalled. “He was very good,” the journalist said, adding that he thought after the show, “this person will go far.”Despite the political jockeying for spots on its shows, #NDTV occasionally bore the brunt of the establishment’s ire, too. Its coverage of the 2002 Gujarat pogrom prompted one such instance. Mehta wrote in his book that after the violence broke out, channels largely refrained from identifying the community to which most victims belonged—a practice inherited from print journalism. #NDTV, then under Star News, took the decision to state that the victims were Muslims. #BarkhaDutt, who covered the violence, later made a powerful defence of this decision, saying that naming the “community under siege” was not just important to the story, “it was in fact the story, revealing as it did a prejudiced administrative and political system that was happy to stand by and watch.”In response to the channel’s coverage, the BJP government in #Gujarat, under Narendra Modi, blacked it out in the state. Mehta contrasted NDTV’s bold stance to that of Zee, which on 1 March 2002 aired an interview with Jaitley, then the union law minister, in which “the anchor … assured the minister of his network’s support.” In his account of the interview in the magazine Seminar, Rajdeep Sardesai left the network unnamed, but wrote that “one channel openly ‘celebrated’ on air the state government’s decision to censor or blackout channels, with the anchor virtually justifying the line that the media was responsible for inflaming passions.”BY 2002, ITS DEAL WITH STAR was coming to an end, NDTV fell out with the channel over negotiations for a new contract. The Roys broke away to launch their own 24-hour news channels over the next two years: NDTV 24×7 in English, and NDTV India in Hindi. (Its Hindi journalists were also stars, among them Vinod Dua, Pankaj Pachauri, Dibang, Rupali Tewari, Naghma Sahar and Ravish Kumar.) The senior journalist told me that these moves were funded, in large part, by the money NDTV had earned over the years, while investors, such as Morgan Stanley, also put in funds. The broadcast media industry was then a “sunshine sector,” the journalist said, and NDTV was a big brand. Investors were willing to bet on the network’s future.THROUGHOUT NDTV’S EXISTENCE, the Roys have exerted complete control over the network’s editorial vision and its business strategy. But a chain of transactions, beginning in 2007, which is mentioned in the recent Delhi High Court affidavits, suggest that their influence may have waned considerably.That year, Radhika and Prannoy Roy decided to buy back a 7.73-percent stake held by another shareholding entity, GA Global Investments. Promoters may have different reasons for buying back shares, such as if they anticipate that their price will rise, or want to further consolidate their holding in the company. Often, as it was in this case, the deal is struck at a price higher than the market rate— #NDTV’s stock was hovering at around Rs 400 at the time, but the Roys bought shares back at Rs 439.As per Indian stock market regulations, this triggered an “open offer,” which allows other shareholders to sell stake—up to a prescribed limit—to the promoters at the same price. These regulations are meant to ensure that when a large shareholder strengthens her ownership, minority shareholders are given the option to exit if they feel their investment will be affected.Even while the open offer was on, the Roys entered into another deal, in March 2008, which possibly violated capital markets regulations. They signed an agreement with Goldman Sachs to sell the investment bank up to 14.99 percent of the NDTV stake they held. The deal also gave Goldman Sachs special rights in the company, including the right to nominate a director on the board. This deal was not declared to any of the authorities or shareholders, and the transactions, which eventually resulted in #GoldmanSachs gaining 14.6 percent of NDTV’s stock, were presented as open-market sales. Oddly, one director that Goldman Sachs nominated said in a letter—responding to a letter from the stockbroker #SanjayDutt—that he was a “nominee of certain funds managed by #GoldmanSachs which were invested in the Company.” Whose money had come through the bank remains unclear.As they prepared to buy back stock, the Roys found themselves short of money. To plug the shortfall, in July 2008, the Roys borrowed Rs 501 crore from India Bulls Financial Services. The loan marked the beginning of a chain of borrowing that haunts the Roys’ account books to this day.The chief cause for the troubles that ensued was bad timing. As the Roys were carrying out the open offer, the housing loan crisis hit the United States and triggered collapses across global markets. NDTV’s stock took a beating, like those of many other companies, globally and in India. From Rs 400 at the end of July 2008, the share price crashed to less than Rs 100 by the end of October. The Roys watched the value of the shares they had just bought nosedive. It was like the floor had collapsed even as they tried to build a house.To repay the #IndiaBulls loan, the Roys took a loan from ICICI, of Rs 375 crore, at an annual interest rate of 19 percent. To obtain this loan they offered as collateral their entire personal shareholding, as well as that of #RRPR, a total of 61.45 percent of #NDTV’s stock.A December 2010 report in the newspaper Sunday Guardian, co-authored by the journalist #Prayaag Akbar—the son of MJ Akbar, who owned the weekly along with the senior advocate and BJP member Ram Jethmalani—described the workings of this #ICICI loan as “financial chicanery,” and said the company had “indulged in financial misdemeanours and malpractices in connivances with ICICI.” The article claimed that the value of each pledged share was Rs 439, when in fact the price at the time the loan was granted was Rs 99. It alleged that “the worth of the collateral was far less than the amount given” as loan.In January 2011, NDTV sued MJ Akbar and others for defamation in the Delhi #HighCourt, and demanded Rs 25 crore in damages. The Roys claimed that their collateral was more than the value of the #ICICI loan. In December 2011, the court restrained the newspaper from “republishing or recirculating” the article online or in print—it remains unavailable on the paper’s website. The case is currently pending in court. But though #NDTV insisted that the story was defamatory, the transaction had come to the notice of authorities. In April 2013, #SanjayDutt wrote a letter about it to the Reserve Bank of India; the central bank responded the next month saying that the loan “is already receiving our attention.”The ICICI loan was only one link in the larger chain of borrowing that the Roys were trapped in, which had begun with the India Bulls loan. To repay ICICI, on 21 July 2009, the Roys took another loan, of Rs 350 crore, from an entity named Vishvapradhan Commercial Private Limited, or #VCPL. The source of this loan was Mukesh Ambani’s Reliance Industries, which routed the money to VCPL through a subsidiary. Prannoy and Radhika signed the agreement for #RRPR. On behalf of #VCPL, the agreement was signed by KR Raja—an employee of Reliance Industries.The terms of this loan were quite extraordinary. First, the Roys were required to divest a significant chunk of their personal stock in NDTV and transfer it to RRPR, taking its total shareholding from 15 percent to 26 percent of the company. Then, control of RRPR was effectively handed over to VCPL. (Even this transaction, which preceded the loan, raises serious questions of propriety. Radhika and Prannoy sold their shares to RRPR at Rs 4 per share when the market price was more than Rs 130. Had they sold at the market price, they would have made significant “capital gains”—or profit from the sale of an asset. This would, in turn, have attracted taxes. It is possible that selling the shares at a lower price saved the Roys crores in taxes. The Roys have defended their decision in the past, claiming that it was a transfer between promoters, and that they were entitled to sell their stock at any price they chose.)After the Roys’ shares were handed over to RRPR, NDTV received Rs 350 crore from VCPL, which they used to repay the ICICI loan. On 9 March 2010, the Roys together transferred an additional 3.18-percent stake of NDTV, which they held personally, to RRPR, at Rs 4 per share, taking RRPR’s total shareholding in the company to 29.18 percent. VCPL then paid an additional Rs 53.85 crore to RRPR, taking the total amount it loaned to NDTV up to Rs 403.85 crore.The agreement gave #VCPL the right to convert the loan into 99.99 percent of #RRPR’s equity—effectively, complete ownership—not just during the period of the loan but even after—“at any time during the tenure of the Loan or thereafter without requiring any further act or deed on the part of the Lender.” Puzzlingly, this meant that regardless of repayment, VCPL could officially take over RRPR at any time it wanted. For all practical purposes, this was a sale of 29.18 percent of NDTV to VCPL—a greater share than the individual holdings of Radhika and Prannoy Roy.Under the agreement, RRPR was to have three directors, one of whom was to be appointed by VCPL. NDTV could not sell or raise further equity, file for bankruptcy, or do anything that would affect RRPR’s shareholding, without VCPL’s consent. (Additionally, the Roys were also barred from selling or transferring their own shares in the company.) These conditions ensured the Roys no longer had any control over RRPR, which owned nearly one-third of NDTV’s stock; effectively their control over NDTV itself was seriously weakened.From VCPL onwards, the loan trail gets murkier. The company’s documents showed it had no assets, businesses or transactions on its books before the NDTV loan. To lend to RRPR, in the 2010 financial year, VCPL itself borrowed Rs 403.85 crore from Shinano Retail, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Reliance. VCPL forwarded this money to RRPR as an unsecured, interest-free loan. The links between VCPL and Shinano form an Escherian stairwell that lead to Reliance no matter where you begin. VCPL’s directors, Ashwin Khasgiwala and Kalpana Srinivasan, were both employees of Reliance. VCPL shared the same address as the Reliance subsidiary Shinano, which in turn owned part of VCPL. And VCPL’s second owner was also a Reliance subsidiary.In its affidavit to the Delhi High Court, the income tax department was categorical in what it thought of VCPL. Quoting its own earlier report, from June 2011, the affidavit stated that VCPL “has no business activity and is not a genuine concern.” It added that it had forwarded details of its investigations into this “allegedly benami” transaction, to the relevant assessing authorities.In a related matter, also in the Delhi High Court, the income tax department clearly traced the source of the money that VCPL gave RRPR: “M/s #RRPRHoldingsPvtLtd. had taken a loan of Rs 403 crores approx. from M/s #VishvapradhanCommercialPvtLtd., which had taken loan from M/s #ShinanoRetailPvtLtd. and M/s #ShinanoRetailPvtLtd. had taken loans from #Reliancegroupofcompanies.”The fact that Reliance stepped in and helped out a floundering NDTV is borne out by a call recorded at the time, between the senior journalist MK Venu and Reliance’s lobbyist #NiiraRadia. The recording, made by the income tax department, was leaked the next year as part of the tranche that is now collectively called the “Radia tapes.” On 9 July 2009, Radia told Venu that she and Manoj Modi, a close associate of Mukesh Ambani, were visiting Delhi to meet Prannoy. “We need to support Prannoy, you know,” she said. “We feel it needs to be supported.”VCPL’s transactions are key to the question of who owns and controls NDTV. Its loan to RRPR meant that Reliance effectively controlled 29.18 percent of NDTV’s shares, while the Roys’ combined share fell to around 32 percent. This much of the trail has been reported before, though not by mainstream media organisations. The media-focused website Newslaundry, in January 2015, used company filings with the ministry of corporate affairs to track the flow of money, and show that Reliance had acquired a substantial stake in NDTV.But when Newslaundry asked Reliance about this loan, a spokesperson responded: “RIL does not have any direct or indirect interest in NDTV.” This seemed an unlikely assertion given the facts that were known.However, the company appears to have told Newslaundry the truth. Investigations by the income tax department, and information available with the ministry of corporate affairs, show that the trail took a mysterious turn at this point, which severed the link between Reliance and NDTV. During the 2012 financial year, Shinano Retail—to whom RRPR owed money through VCPL—declared in its annual report that VCPL had repaid its loan of Rs 403.85 crore. But the money did not come from NDTV—RRPR’s records for the same year showed that it still owed VCPL Rs 403.85 crore (the company still owes this money). Thus, the money Reliance lent RRPR had been paid back—but not by RRPR.How did this happen? The documents throw some light on the question, but still leave a lot unexplained. They show that during the 2012 financial year, #VCPL received Rs 50 crore from #EminentNetworks, a company owned by Mahendra Nahata, an industrialist, who is also on the board of one Reliance company. The transaction gave Eminent rights over VCPL’s loan to RRPR, worth Rs 403.85 crore.But this does not make intuitive sense. The value of a Rs 403.85 crore loan is, of course, Rs 403.85 crore. It does not stand to reason that VCPL would sell that loan to Eminent for a mere Rs 50 crore. Further, Shinano had declared that it received the entire Rs 403.85 crore from VCPL. But VCPL only had Rs 50 crore on its books that year, paid to it by Eminent. Even if it paid that entire amount to Shinano, that still left more than Rs 350 crore unaccounted for that Shinano claimed it had received from the company.This discrepancy suggests that either Eminent, through VCPL, paid more than the Rs 50 crore it claimed to have paid, or that Shinano received less than the Rs 403.85 crore it claimed to have received. Alternatively, a third party, which is off the books, and still unknown, might have made up the shortfall, and paid Shinano Rs 353.85 crore, helping snip the link between Reliance and NDTV. (The same year, VCPL’s ownership also changed hands, from Reliance companies to entities related to Mahendra Nahata.) If a mystery party is involved, it is perhaps fair to assume that their payment of such a large sum of money would come with rights over the agreement VCPL has with RRPR and the Roys—namely, rights over all of RRPR’s shares, which Mukesh Ambani once held indirectly, and riders on the Roys’ personal stake.NDTV should have declared the VCPL loan transactions to SEBI, as is mandatory for a publicly traded company when its promoter entity changes (RRPR was declared as a promoter entity, and the deal effectively changed its ownership). In response to a complaint from Sanjay Dutt, the regulator claimed in April 2015 that it was “unable to get its hands” on the loan agreement between VCPL and RRPR. This was odd: #SEBI, as the market regulator, should have been able to access the documents of NDTV, a publicly traded company. Further, by this time, the document was already available with another government agency—the income tax department.#NDTV did not inform the ministry of information and broadcasting about these transactions either, although it is mandatory for news companies to declare loans and other agreements to the ministry. What entity currently has indirect control over RRPR is for the moment unknown. It is clear, however, that the Roys’ move to strengthen their hold over NDTV by buying back shares has left them facing the prospect of losing significant control over their company.EVEN AS THE ROYS STRUGGLED with their account books, their newsroom was facing its own set of problems. In April 2004, just a year after the launch of NDTV 24×7, #ArnabGoswami, then the national news editor of the channel, left to launch and head a rival channel, #TimesNow. A year later, NDTV’s managing editor, #RajdeepSardesai, left to set up CNN-IBN with the entrepreneur Raghav Bahl. He took with him the company’s chief financial officer, Sameer Manchanda, who had been with the Roys since 1988.“ Metronation and Imagine were shut down over the next two years. As the pressure on them grew, the Roys resorted to layoffs. Between 2008 and 2009, the network fired approximately 250 people, or 20 percent of its workforce.This marked the beginning of a downslide from which NDTV hasn’t recovered. Its stock price, which reached a high of Rs 511 in January 2008, tumbled to Rs 25 in 2012, and currently hovers between Rs 80 and Rs 100. Its value by market capitalisation—the share price multiplied by the total number of shares—has dropped from around Rs 3,000 crore in early 2008 to less than Rs 600 crore currently. It last recorded a profit, of Rs 21.9 crore, in March 2005. Its annual losses are now in the tens of crores—Rs 84 crore for the financial year 2014 and Rs 46 crore for the financial year 2015.Meanwhile, the network’s editorial credibility also suffered a serious blow. In November 2010, the magazines Open and Outlook published the first set of the #Radiatapes, which prominently featured NDTV’s group editor, #BarkhaDutt.In the leaked conversations, Dutt’s conduct appeared to violate norms of editorial probity. In the most glaring such instance, she agreed to courier information from Radia to the #Congress on behalf of the party’s coalition partner, the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam. In one of the many conversations between the two, from 22 May 2009, Dutt asked Radia, “Tell me, what should I tell them?” Later the same day, Dutt said, “I’ve had a long chat, and they promised me that Azad will speak to him,” referring to #GhulamNabiAzad of the #Congress, and M Karunanidhi of the #DMK. The conversation took place a month before Radia told Venu that she planned to meet Prannoy in Delhi to “support” him; it was two months before the Roys signed the #VCPL loan agreement with the Reliance employee KR Raja. (A number of individuals involved in the Roys’ financial dealings have been under investigation for other business matters. The serious fraud investigation office has probed KR Raja and Radia for Reliance’s transactions with INX News Private Limited. And Mahendra Nahata, who bought RRPR’s loan in the 2012 financial year, was recently investigated by the CBI as part of the cases related to the sale of 2G spectrum.)EACH OF THE INVESTIGATIONS into NDTV’s business dealings is like a cocked gun pointed at the company. These, more than newsroom troubles, and even questions of ownership, seem to be the biggest threats looming over the company and the Roys.Of these investigations, the probes by multiple agencies into NDTV’s web of offshore transactions are perhaps the most critical. The enforcement directorate and income tax department’s affidavits on their investigations into these matters mention that the CBI and the RBI, among other agencies, are also examining these deals.Some of these transactions were first investigated in the mid 2000s, by an income tax officer named SK Srivastava, whom I met in late September at his office in Noida. A tall man with a toothbrush moustache, Srivastava can rattle off long monologues about NDTV—which he seems to hate passionately—and its finances, without consulting a single document.He started with investigations into alleged violations in NDTV’s tax assessments. (In an apparent conflict of interest, one tax officer who was involved in the assessment, Sumana Sen, was married to an NDTV journalist named Abhisar Sharma, who is now with ABP News.)In his letter, sent in December 2013, Jethmalani accused NDTV and Chidambaram of concealing income of around Rs 5,700 crore, laundering money to the tune of Rs 5,500 crore, evading taxes of about Rs 3,500 crore, and embezzling around Rs 1.5 crore of government money. NDTV had floated “altogether 21 bogus subsidiaries” across the world, Jethmalani thundered at Chidambaram, through which “illicit black money was laundered,” and the money in question “belongs to you and your son.”The minister replied to Jethmalani on 19 December, denying all charges and calling them “outrageous allegations.” He wrote that he had, nevertheless, forwarded the letter and the details to the finance-cum-revenue secretary to “cause an inquiry in a time bound manner and to submit the conclusions of the inquiry in a sealed cover directly to the Hon’ble Prime Minister.” Unconvinced, Jethmalani responded ten days later, saying that he didn’t see how a fair inquiry could be conducted by the minister’s subordinate. He signed off saying, “I regret this matter has to end in the courts of the country or perhaps the Court of the Sovereign People of India.”A similar exchange took place between Prannoy and Gurumurthy in January 2014. In the email conversation, Prannoy tried to convince Gurumurthy, with the help of documents, that his accusations were baseless. Like Jethmalani, Gurumurthy responded, ten days later, saying that he remained unconvinced.Many of the findings from the current investigations pertain to the question of raising foreign capital for a media business. (Until 11 November, a television news company was allowed a maximum of 26 percent of its equity through foreign direct investment. Recently, the Modi government raised this limit to 49 percent.) The #ED affidavit stated that #NDTV had set up a number of wholly-owned subsidiaries and joint ventures to raise capital abroad. Some of these, it said, “directly or indirectly through step down subsidiaries made investments in India.” It claimed that, between 2006 and 2011, “NDTV or related companies in India” received Rs 648.81 crore in foreign funds. (At another point, the affidavit cited a foreign direct investment of Rs 1,295 crore in “NDTV related” companies, though it didn’t specify a time frame for this.)Also citing a CBI inquiry dating to 2011, the affidavit outlined one particularly tangled set of transactions to this end. It begins with a transfer of a sum of Rs 387.62 crore from “NDTV (Media) Mauritius Ltd” to “NDTV Studios Ltd,” an Indian subsidiary of NDTV Limited. “A small portion of these funds were used for investment in 6 new subsidiaries in India in 2009,” the affidavit stated, while a major portion went to a convoluted trail of companies, including some that it describes as subsidiaries of NDTV. “NDTV Studios Ltd and its 6 subsidiaries were thereafter merged with NDTV,” stated the affidavit, “thereby creating doubts about the purpose of their setting up as well as the sources of funds for NDTV (Media) Mauritius Ltd and the need to set up various companies in Mauritius.”Given Jethmalani’s explosive allegations against #Chidambaram, the question arises whether the latest affidavits claimed any link between the company and the minister. As it turns out, the name does appear in the #ED affidavit, but in ambiguous phrasing. “It is alleged that around 294 companies with investors/ share holders having surnames like Chidambaram are running from the same premises as NDTV Network PLC”—a London-based subsidiary of NDTV—the affidavit stated. The phrase “it is alleged” leaves unclear whether it is the ED which is alleging this, or whether the agency is referring to another, possibly older, allegation. Further, the documents don’t identify any individuals beyond the phrase “with surnames like Chidambaram,” and don’t identify any precise allegations of violations that link NDTV with the former minister.The ED affidavit devoted considerable space to the funds raised by the London subsidiary NDTV Network PLC, which filed an application with the Foreign Investment Promotion Board on 4 January 2007 for approval for investment into the “non-news sector in India.” After receiving this approval, the company raised funds from foreign sources to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars. This included a sum of $150 million raised from NBC Universal, one of the largest media companies in the United States. The money gave NBCU an indirect stake of 26 percent in NDTV Network PLC.Before this deal was announced, a string of emails was exchanged between NDTV’s senior-most executives and consultants of the firm #PricewaterhouseCoopers, in which they discussed the drafting of a press release about the matter. “If asked a question what will the money be used for???” wrote a #PwC executive named Vivek Mehra on 21 May 2008. “We need to decide how to answer this question carefully.”The next day, #PrannoyRoy sent out “a first bash” at the press release, in which he wrote that as a result of the NBCU deal, the parent company #NDTV Ltd now had funds of $150 million “to use for any opportunities in the future including acquisitions, expansion in the news space, or in the beyond-news space.” The phrase “expansion in the news space” continued to appear in the next few drafts of the release, exchanged over email. However, the final press release, published on the NDTV website, did not claim that the funds would be used for news.In its affidavit, the #ED said that it had taken statements from Navneet Raghuvanshi, NDTV’s company secretary, on 17 August, and 3, 4, 9, 10, 11 and 12 September last year, as part of its probe. The income tax department summoned NDTV’s vice-chairman, KVL Narayana Rao, around the same time. The ED affidavit ended with the line: “Further investigation in this case is in progress.”On 19 November, the ED stepped up its offensive against #NDTV, and issued a show-cause notice to the company. In it, the agency said it had identified contraventions of the foreign exchange management act, or #FEMA, by the company. It also listed transactions by the company that the RBI has described as spurious. A “note” from the agency about the show-cause notice claimed that the amount involved was Rs 2,030.05 crore. The note ended, echoing the affidavit: “Further investigation under #FEMA is being carried out.”But the sheer number of probes against NDTV, and their depth, is alarming. The figure raised in just the #ED’s show-cause notice, Rs 2,030 crore, is more than three times what #NDTV is worth today. If the allegations in the investigations are proven, the consequences could be devastating for what was once India’s most successful news network.