How Barium Sulphate IR Cooling Paint Works

Passive radiative cooling paint turns a surface into a “thermal radiator” that sheds heat into outer space. Barium sulphate (BaSO4​) is used because it outperforms both titanium dioxide (TiO2​) and chuna through two key properties:

1. Near-Total Solar Reflection: BaSO4​ particles are engineered to maximize “Mie scattering,” reflecting up to 98% of sunlight. Unlike TiO2​, which absorbs harmful UV rays and creates internal heat, BaSO4​ has a wide “band gap,” meaning it reflects UV radiation without absorbing it.
2. High-Efficiency Thermal Emission: To cool down, a surface must “dump” heat. The atmosphere is transparent to infrared light in the 8–13 μm range (the “Atmospheric Window”). BaSO4​ is highly emissive in this specific range, allowing heat to escape directly through the atmosphere into the cold of space, something chuna cannot do as efficiently.

In summary: It acts as a perfect mirror for sunlight and a specialized emitter thermal energy. It will remain cool in direct sunlight, but will work even better at night.

“I used it but it didn’t work”

Where It Works Best (High-Efficiency Surfaces)

The goal is to maximize the “exhaust” of heat while minimizing the “intake.”

GreyB

• Thin, Low-Thermal-Mass Surfaces: Metal roofs are ideal. Because metal is thin and has low thermal mass, it doesn’t store much heat. When the paint reflects sunlight and emits IR, the surface temperature drops almost instantly. This makes it exceptionally useful for slums.
• Isolated/Exposed Surfaces: Surfaces with a clear, unobstructed view of the sky perform best. Obstructions like trees, overhanging structures, or nearby walls that radiate their own heat toward the paint will reduce the cooling effect. Clear weather will allow for stronger cooling than hazy/cloudy weather.

Possible reasons why your use case is not working as well

• High Thermal Mass (Concrete/Tiles): Thick concrete roofs act like a massive thermal battery. They store an immense amount of heat from the previous day. Even if the paint successfully cools the surface by 5°C, the rest of the thick concrete slab underneath is still dumping massive amounts of stored heat into your rooms. It will take time to cool all that and immediate cooling may not be noticeable.
• Humidity: The “atmospheric window” (the 8–13 μm range) is transparent only when the air is dry. In humid, tropical climates, water vapor in the atmosphere reduces direct exposure to space, which reduces the cooling.
• The “Heating Faster than Cooling” Gap: Radiative cooling paint provides a relatively low cooling power (approx. 50–100 W/m2). If the space is heating faster than it is cooling, you have a problem. You can prevent this by insulating the space, closing any sources of heat off, so it can’t enter the home/room and the heat lost through the roof is not replaced and remains lost – thus cooling the space.
• Surface Contamination: Dust, dirt, or even a thin film of “traffic grime” creates a new, non-radiative surface on top of your paint. This immediately blocks the atmospheric window and ruins the cooling performance.
• Mechanical Wear: If people are walking on it, the microscopic structure of the paint (which is engineered specifically for light scattering) gets crushed or flattened. Once that structure is compromised, it stops being a “perfect mirror” and starts being just a regular white floor.

Radiative cooling paint is a “lifesaver” concept because it addresses the passive thermal load—the heat that enters a space simply because the sun is beating down on it. In the context of Delhi heatwaves, where temperatures frequently push beyond human survivability, this technology shifts the baseline.

Why it’s a game-changer for slums in particular

• Mitigating Thermal Lag: Informal housing often uses materials like corrugated iron sheets or thin asbestos, which have no thermal insulation. These structures heat up within minutes of sunrise. BUT THIS MEANS THEY CAN ALSO COOL QUICKLY once their smaller store of heat is dumped.
• Poor ventilation: The poor ventilation of clustered slum dwellings also means that the heat won’t immediately be replaced by the heated surroundings despite poor insulation.
• Affordability vs. Alternatives: You cannot easily “insulate” a slum dwelling with expensive fiberglass or polyurethane panels. Painting a roof is a low-barrier, low-skill, and low-cost intervention that can be scaled to thousands of homes simultaneously.
• Addressing the “Urban Heat Island” (UHI): In dense clusters like slums, the UHI effect is intense because heat is trapped between buildings. If every roof in a neighborhood is painted with radiative cooling paint, the collective “heat dumping” into the atmosphere could lower the ambient air temperature of the entire street, not just the individual houses.

Torture of Shiv Kumar

On 12 March 2026, Shiv Kumar, a labour rights activist, and Ilakkiya, a student activist, were abducted from the near gate of Dayal Singh College, Delhi. Their detention was carried out without any due process, in blatant violation of their fundamental legal and constitutional rights.

Following his abduction, Shiv Kumar was subjected to systematic and severe physical and sexual torture. He was beaten with his own belt, with the metal buckle repeatedly directed at his genitals. He was suspended upside down for over two hours and beaten with a rubber baton on his lower body. Officers lifted him by his beard, crushed his foot under their shoes, and kept him handcuffed throughout his detention.

He was continuously abused and coerced. He was forced to record a false statement at gunpoint claiming he had gone underground—clearly an attempt to conceal his illegal detention. He was also threatened with death.

In an egregious act of sexual violence, Shiv Kumar and fellow detainee Rudra were stripped naked in each other’s presence and subjected to sexual humiliation and assault. Shiv Kumar was further coerced into physically assaulting another detainee.

Abduction and Torture of Manjeet Kumar

Later the same day, Manjeet Kumar, a worker and activist associated with the Majdoor Adhikar Sangathan and a close associate of Shiv Kumar, was abducted while returning from a solidarity programme demanding the release of Advocate Surendra Gadling. He was stripped naked, forced to lie face down, and beaten on the soles of his feet while officers sat on his back.

Upon discovering his Dalit identity, officers subjected him to caste-based humiliation, forcing him to clean rooms while naked. He was also subjected to severe sexual violence, including being forced into a sexual act by an officer. This abuse was recorded by other officers present in the room.

Targeting of Family and Legal Support

When Manjeet’s mother and his friend Aman went to file a habeas corpus petition, Aman was abducted while returning to Delhi. After reaching near his village and separating from Manjeet’s mother (the petitioner), he was picked up and brought to the Delhi Police Special Cell office in New Friends Colony. He was explicitly threatened not to approach the courts. This represents a direct attack on the right to legal remedy and the justice system itself.

Further Abductions and Torture

On the following day, Gaurav was abducted and subjected to brutal torture and sexual humiliation alongside Rudra. Both were stripped naked, and Gaurav was physically assaulted, including being beaten with a metal chain on his genitals. He was coerced into recording a false statement and, upon refusal, his head was repeatedly slammed against a wall.

Akshay, a *Delhi University Law Department student*, was also abducted and tortured. Officers deliberately targeted his previously injured knee, forcing his legs apart and applying pressure while beating him.

Avinash was abducted on 13 March along with others. He was slapped, kicked, and humiliated, including being mocked and feminized. He and Gaurav were forced into degrading acts under threat of violence, and further abuse was inflicted on all detainees.

Torture of Rudra

Rudra was taken to a senior officer’s room, where he was severely beaten, stripped naked multiple times, and subjected to extreme sexual violence and humiliation. He was threatened with extrajudicial killing and told his death would be staged as a suicide. He was also coerced into false statements and subjected to degrading acts intended to break his dignity and will.

Systematic Pattern of Abuse

All detainees were subjected to continuous physical assault, sexual violence, humiliation, and coercion. These testimonies collectively reveal a systematic campaign of state terror targeting labour activists, student activists, ANTi-displacement activists and those seeking justice.

The methods employed—including illegal abduction, incommunicado detention, custodial torture, sexual violence, caste-based degradation, forced confessions, and threats against families—constitute serious violations of the Constitution of India, the Protection of Human Rights Act, and India’s obligations under international law, including the UN Convention Against Torture.

The targeting of Aman to prevent the filing of a habeas corpus petition demonstrates a deliberate attempt to obstruct judicial processes and undermine the rule of law.

DEMANDS

1. Immediate cessation of illegal detentions, torture, and harassment of labour, student, and anti-displacement activists.

2. Institution of an independent judicial inquiry into these incidents.

3. Immediate prosecution and punishment of the Delhi Police Special Cell officials responsible.

4. Immediate release of all illegally seized digital devices and personal belongings of the activists.

End State Violence. Uphold Democratic Rights.

Press statement from *CAMPAIGN AGAINST STATE REPRESSION* (AIRSO,AISF, APCR, ASA, BASF, BSM, Bhim Army, bsCEM, CEM, COLLECTIVE, CRPP, CSM, CTF, DISSC, DSU, DTF, Forum Against Repression Telangana, Fraternity, IAPL, Innocence Network, Karnataka Janashakti, LAA, Mazdoor Adhikar Sangathan, Mazdoor Patrika, NAPM, Nazariya Magazine , Nishant Natya Manch, Nowruz, NTUI, People’s Watch, Rihai Manch, Samajwadi Janparishad, Smajwadi lok manch, Bahujan Samjavadi Mnach, United Peace Alliance, WSS, Y4S)

Reform That Named Its Targets

Vidyasagar did not speak in abstractions. He identified specific injustices and worked to dismantle them.

He fought for widow remarriage, not as a moral gesture but as a social and legal necessity, contributing directly to the Hindu Widows’ Remarriage Act of 1856. He opposed child marriage, arguing that it inflicted lifelong harm while hiding behind custom. He championed women’s education, helping establish schools for girls at a time when educating women was widely seen as dangerous to social order.

These positions were not politely received. He was mocked, vilified, and accused of betraying religion and tradition. Yet he did not soften his arguments to make them acceptable. He returned to them repeatedly, publicly, in print and policy, insisting that tradition could not justify cruelty.

This was not moderation. It was tenacity.

Reason as a Tool, Not a Retreat

Vidyasagar’s method was reason, but not because he believed society was naturally reasonable. He used argument, evidence, and clarity to leave his opponents with no refuge. Customs that produced suffering, he argued, forfeited their moral authority regardless of age or sanctity.

This approach demanded courage of a quieter kind. Without the drama of rebellion, he faced constant, grinding resistance. He was opposed not only by orthodox elites, but also by those who preferred gradual reform as a way of postponing change indefinitely.

Still, he persisted.

Vidyasagar did not confuse civility with compliance. He understood that reform would be resisted precisely because it threatened comfort and hierarchy.

The Society He Worked Against

It is important to name the society Vidyasagar confronted. It was one that praised learning while denying education to women. One that claimed reverence for scripture while tolerating the suffering of widows and children. One that admired reformers in theory and resisted reform in practice.

This was not ignorance. It was refusal.

Vidyasagar’s struggle was not to make injustice visible. It was to compel action in a society that already knew and preferred not to change.

Relevance Today: When Denial Is Political

The debate around child marriage today reveals how little this dynamic has changed.

In contemporary political discourse, child marriage is frequently weaponized as a problem belonging to “others”, most often Muslims, framed as cultural backwardness rather than a structural failure. Yet available data tells a less convenient story. An analysis of census figures shows that 84% of the nearly 12 million children married before the age of 10 in India are Hindus, while 11% are Muslims, a reflection of population share and entrenched social practices rather than religious doctrine.

This is not a marginal statistic. It exposes a deliberate misdirection. By externalizing the problem, society avoids confronting its own failures. The political refusal to acknowledge this reality denies children the protection that an evolved society should offer them.

Vidyasagar would have recognized this instantly. He understood that as long as cruelty can be blamed on an “other”, reform will stall indefinitely.

Tenacity Has a Cost

Over decades of resistance, even tenacity exacts a price. Vidyasagar did not abandon his principles, but he did withdraw from public life later on, disillusioned by how slowly and unevenly society absorbed the changes he fought for.

This was not defeat. It was the recognition that reform, even when achieved, can be partial, fragile, and lonely.

What He Leaves Us With

Ishwar Chandra Vidyasagar leaves us with a standard of moral persistence. Not the drama of confrontation, but the discipline of return. To the same principles. The same demands. The same insistence that cruelty, when defended as tradition or redirected as someone else’s problem, remains cruelty.

If Bismil teaches us courage against power, Vidyasagar teaches us something no less demanding: the courage to keep reforming a society that knows better, resists anyway, and protects itself through denial.

That lesson remains unfinished.

On 19 December 1927, Ram Prasad Bismil was executed by the British colonial state for his role in revolutionary resistance against imperial rule. He was punished not for a lapse of character, but for sustained, deliberate action against an unjust order.

Time has a way of sanding down such lives. It prefers poetry to planning, sacrifice to strategy. Bismil is remembered as a martyr, safely placed in history, his danger neutralized by distance. We remember the labels to respect, but not the courage it took. What is often lost is that his life was not a symbol. It was work.

Relentless, organized, exhausting work.

Revolutionary Action, Not Transgression

Bismil did not drift into defiance. He chose revolutionary action fully aware of its consequences. Writing and circulating forbidden literature, building underground networks, raising funds, coordinating operations, living under constant surveillance, and accepting the likelihood of arrest and execution were not gestures. They were material interventions against a regime that maintained itself through force and fear.

Colonial law classified these acts as “crimes”. That word deserves quotation marks and scrutiny. Laws designed to preserve domination do not acquire moral authority simply by being enforced. Bismil understood this clearly. Obedience to such laws was not virtue. It was surrender.

This commitment demanded tireless effort. There were no safe interludes, no periods of normalcy. Revolutionary work consumed time, relationships, security, and eventually life itself. It was not romantic. It was chosen.

From His Prison Autobiography (adapted translation)

People believe that revolutionaries do not feel fear. This is a mistake. Fear is natural. Courage is not its absence, but the decision not to let it rule one’s actions.

A person who does not feel fear cannot be brave. Bravery exists only where fear exists.

I have often been afraid. But I decided long ago that fear would not decide my conduct. That decision must be renewed every day.

The Present Contrast: Fear, Convenience, and Inaction

Most people today are not blind to injustice. Exploitation, corruption, discrimination, institutional decay, abuse of power. These are noticed, discussed, even condemned in private.

The difference lies in response.

We calculate consequences. Speaking up could cost employment, social standing, access, safety. Silence is explained as pragmatism. Adjustment is reframed as maturity. We convince ourselves that restraint is wisdom.

Bismil’s life exposes the weakness of this reasoning. He did not deny consequences. He accepted them. Fear did not disappear for him. What disappeared was the expectation that doing the right thing would be comfortable.

Modern power rarely relies on overt terror alone. It depends on our attachment to convenience. As long as injustice does not interrupt daily life too sharply, most people will learn to live alongside it.

Bismil chose otherwise. Not because he was fearless, but because he refused to let fear and comfort dictate his moral boundaries.

The Enemy Has Changed. The Demand Has Not.

Bismil fought a visible adversary. An external colonist that could be named, resisted, and ultimately expelled. That clarity no longer exists.

Today, the most damaging exploitation of India does not come from an occupying foreign power, but from within. From those who extract public wealth for private profit. Who hollow out institutions while wrapping themselves in nationalism. Who treat accountability as hostility and dissent as betrayal.

There is nowhere for them to return to. No foreign power waiting offshore. They are not outsiders.

They are us.

This is why Bismil’s methods cannot simply be repeated. Armed revolution against an external ruler does not translate cleanly into resistance within a society fractured by complicity, denial, and self-interest.

But the courage Bismil practiced remains necessary.

When Society Was the Shelter, and When It Isn’t

Bismil did not act in isolation. Even under colonial rule, there existed a broad moral alignment within society. The colonist was external. Resistance, however risky, was against the ‘other’.

The present is more complicated.

Today, challenging wrongdoing often means confronting people within one’s own society: colleagues, institutions, neighbors, even family. To speak up now is not only to challenge power, but to disrupt social consensus. The cost is not merely legal or economic. It is relational.

This changes the nature of courage.

Courage Without Consensus

Where Bismil could count on society broadly opposing colonial domination, we face resistance from among ourselves. Those who benefit, even indirectly, from injustice often experience criticism as a personal attack.

Speaking against wrongdoing today invites social punishment. One is labeled disloyal, disruptive, negative, ungrateful. Silence is rewarded as balance. Dissent is framed as immaturity.

The challenge, then, is not only to resist power, but to endure the discomfort of standing apart from one’s own community.

Bismil faced an external enemy. We face internal resistance. The arena has shifted, but the demand remains the same: the refusal to let fear decide one’s conduct.

What His Life Leaves Us With

Ram Prasad Bismil does not offer us a script for the present. He offers us a standard. He reminds us that freedom was not won by people who waited for safety, approval, or convenience.

Today, the price of conscience is often paid not in blood, but in comfort. In reputation. In belonging.

The question Bismil leaves behind is not whether we recognize injustice. It is whether we are willing to endure the consequences of challenging it.

That question has not aged at all.

The goal can’t be to take those bases out – it could have been done far more quietly without the incitement to war. Whatever additional goals there were – say for example, forcing Pakistan to concede defeat and impose punishing consequences, or isolate Pakistan in the eyes of the world, etc failed miserably, and not for lack of results from the armed forces.

The government that has become so accustomed to managing public relations with brute force failed miserably to gain the trust of the world. Some reasons:

A successful strike turned into a losing war

There was no real way to win this conflict. Pakistan is a nuclear state, and there would be intervention before it escalated even remotely to the point where Pakistan was cornered. One possibility was to drag it on without winning it with military might till the bite of the economy delivered a defeat, but our aggressive messaging kept pushing for escalation, and it wouldn’t deliver spectacular political optics. This government cannot do something like this, because its messaging has long been broken and out of control. For something like that, you’d need a functioning media publishing analysis, contextualizing the actions, pointing out consequences, and so on. Like the spread of decay, anything with notable access to the government ends up being compromised and turned into a puppet, whether institutions or media. Any media with significant access to the state has been reduced to stenographers incapable of independent thought.

Censorship and media relations

The move to censor news from Pakistan, independent Indian media, as well as credible foreign media backfired horrendously. It instantly painted India as country with something to hide. It doesn’t help that India has already alienated foreign media by banning journalists entry, blocking news we don’t like, Indian trolls attacking criticism with massive numbers and unmatched vitriol. So the number of foreign journalists to count on for sympathetic coverage was very low. Whether it is because Pakistan doesn’t have the economic reach of India or because the West has extensive reach and familiarity due to the Afghan War, Pakistan did not face this hurdle. On the world stage, Modi’s media management was decimated.

Within India, the lack of information prevented independent Indian media from operating optimally. Beyond the hysterical puppets of the state, nobody knew enough to understand and project the Indian perspective. Even attempts by independent media to provide analysis were hindered by an insecure government blocking access to them. It is mind-boggling that India did not trust its own veterans to comment on the actions of its own armed forces favorably. This definitely creates a perception that India knew it was in the wrong, hiding something much worse or losing and was now blocking visibility for political reasons. Much of the energy of Indian voices invested in the war was spent on challenging blocks and lack of access. Ironically, avoiding it would be dead easy. The government had to do NOTHING. Let media do its job.

This lack of visibility was a huge problem. Personally, I think this was to protect the BJP government and Modi in particular from the public knowing that the Rafales purchased at such great cost had gifted India an avidly watched defeat at the hands of Pakistan. This is not national interest. It is BJP’s personal interest in defending the bloated deal it gifted its cronies. And for this, BJP gave India its first defeat at the hands of Pakistan. Whether you call it a ceasefire or an understanding is immaterial. The fact is that the war of perceptions is already lost when Trump basically announced that we’d stand down and the fair-weather Prime Minister hasn’t showed his face since.

India’s massive army means there is no shortage of extremely competent, analytical commentators among our retired officers who could easily have contextualized the mission, explained conditions and defined how success or defeat is estimated.

But without clear information on an already problematic mission on civilian targets, with images of civilian casualties flooding social media, Pakistan, and military commentators around the world were able to present this strike as a resounding defeat for India, even though the targets had been achieved and the only losses were to equipment, which is to be expected at such times. All the downing of the Rafales was, was a victory in air to air combat, AFTER the mission had already accomplished its goals. This, in most situations would be called a successful mission, except the politics to protect the Rafale deal silenced information on our success and turned it into a defeat for India in global opinion.

By treating media it cannot control as the enemy, Modi effectively eliminated any chance at being seen favorably, and what little curiosity value he had has been thoroughly squandered with grandiose posturing and claims of Indian greatness without speaking anything of substance.

Unpatriotic government

The political leadership of the country, so quick to proclaim machoism and how Operation Sindoor will teach Pakistan a lesson and claiming great willingness to escalate unless Pakistan just shut up and took it, vanished in the middle of the operation, leaving “sources”, media, and assorted bureaucrats to handle the fallout once they were thoroughly discredited was the warmongering opportunists they are. The last two leaders of nations India has heard on the subject of the ceasefire are the Pakistani Prime Minister and the President of the United States. Let that sink in.

Quick to take personal credit for any achievement of India, Modi is nowhere to be seen now that his chunavi jumla has bombed. As usual. And as usual, I’m pretty sure he’s willing to wait out any objections till his troll armies fatigue dissent into silence and expects no consequences worth mentioning, in spite of almost having dragged India into a catastrophic war.

What little credibility we have left is because of the Air Force presentation on the achievements of the mission. A briefing that truly deserves applause, because it was done at a time when all the media outside India was convinced of PAF’s air superiority and completely oblivious to the facts of the utterly disproportionate impact India had on Pakistan on the ground, while Pakistan had barely been able to penetrate our defenses. It takes a lot of courage to come forth and speak at a time when the leadership of the country is speaking through unnamed “sources”. They saved the day.

This is after the Air Force Chief had been forced to go public over an aircraft shortage. Both the Air Force and the Navy have raised concerns regarding staff shortages as well. The government hasn’t bothered to upgrade crucial equipment for ages, the ever greedy machinery strangling those not allowed to go public with their protest. The last time we bought planes were the highly expensive Rafales and that was in 2015. Ten years ago. Still, our Air Force lived up to expectations and were still made to look incompetent by a government that cares for nothing but its own political advantage. INS Vikrant provided crucial support ensuring the success of missions.

Though I suppose Modi will now pop up to take credit again.

The liability of Hindutva extremists

If there is a single element that defeated India worse than the government, it is it’s flying monkeys. The hysterical news coverage obfuscated real messaging and concrete achievements, making all news coming out of India to be seen as suspect. When Pakistani media uses fake news from Indian channels in its official briefing, you know Indian news channels have nothing to do with news and are basically profiteers dealing with sensationalism, no matter the cost. First they came for minorities. Now they came for the whole country.

India has already been facing a massive dislikeability crisis in recent years, with Hindu nationalists disliked globally. We can pretend it is because the world is jealous of India’s rise, etc but it will take an exceptional moron to believe it. Pakistan being jealous I can understand, but countries with GDPs in multiples of ours and the living standards of their poorest something our middle class might aspire to are really not jealous. Indians are fleeing India in droves. This isn’t because India is a great place to be in by global standards. We love it sure – it is the only place we know. Or at least I don’t have a passport. Our living standards are pathetic. Nobody is jealous of India. There are far better targets to be jealous of.

The dislikeability is because of BJP’s influence on the public. A hatred for a growing list of iidentities – Muslim, secular, Congressi, presstitute, AAPtard… anybody who isn’t a fan of Modi gets a label and instant hate. A public told that Hindus are the best, Hindu culture is the best, and that they are victimized and to be alert for anybody who doesn’t agree, because they are traitors… taught how other religions are bad… They believe it, because voices they trust are raping their brains for political profit, but get out of those social cocoons, and they are stunned that forget being liked and respected, they are actively disliked. Forget abroad, Indian tourists are not even liked in Indian tourist destinations frequented by foreign tourists, because they simply cannot meet different thinking and respect it. Indian tourists will often behave in ways that make foreign tourists feel intimidated and unsafe and they look down on hotel staff, so it can lead to extremely difficult situations. It is not uncommon for hotels to simply claim they are full, particularly if a large group of loud Indian men tries to check in. This includes Hindu religious tourist destinations. Surely religious Hindu Indians are not jealous of India.

This, combined with the growing use of the internet has dumped vast quantities of half-literate, fully arrogant and doubly crude Indians everywhere. You’ll find them in YouTube comments on cooking videos that have nothing to do with culture. You’ll find them in the mentions of respected journalists, hurling profanity at their mothers. You see them rejoicing in photos of dead infants to support a genocidal Israel – their only interest in the matter? Muslims being killed. They adore Hitler for the exact same reason they love Israel – state-sanctioned genocides. You’ll find them trolling your own foreign secretary’s daughter till a public figure representing India has to protect his account. This is great for thumping chests at anything Hindu and going “Modi, Modi, Modi”, but it is useless for anything practical for the citizens or country. It is unpleasant, and it simply doesn’t make anybody want to see such people thrive.

The hatred Hindu nationalists have for Muslims is so notorious, that it is like the boy who called wolf. If we say Pakistan is a terror sponsoring state, how do we get anybody to believe it? Because our TV channels are also showing the Saudi flag trampled and an Iranian diplomat – an ally on a diplomatic visit – being called the son of a pig. If you ignore a few educated Indians getting jobs abroad, our image as a nation is one of rabid Islamophobia and extreme hostility to all disagreement. Why would anybody believe anything bad we say about Pakistan isn’t because they are Muslim and been in conflict with us for ages? Meticulous proofs would have helped, but we aren’t in the business of proofs, just flinging accusations and driving angry hordes at targets to ram them through. But Indians get intimidated by these tactics, not because a few trolls are angry, but because of a well-established pattern of impunity for everything from assassinations to mob attacks if they piss off the angry hordes. Non-Indians have no such fear. They simply think Indians are nasty, filthy and usually dead wrong, and get on with their lives. And they aren’t interested in digging deeper and finding out that they might be wrong this one time.

And thus, Modi and BJP have gifted India it’s first humiliation by Pakistan – in spite of our forces having done everything right. If this is not gaddari to the nation to protect cronies, I don’t know what is.

Modi and BJP are a curse on India. Parasites sucking the money out of India to give their cronies, risking India for political posturing, making it look bad to protect their cronies and finally abandoning it when the going gets tough. Parasites, the lot of them.

The first I heard of Operation Sindoor was after we had already hit ‘terrorist targets’ in Pakistan, and the right wing was wishing Pakistan a happy ‘Diwali,’ proudly explaining how the operation’s name symbolized the sindoor of the women who’d lost their husbands in the terrorist attack at Pehelgam.

While I hadn’t been too active on social media, this took me by surprise. I hadn’t heard of any progress in the investigation into the attack. Comments by others on Twitter confirmed the same. Still, our government—notorious for its lack of communication even during calmer times and completely opaque with these high-profile maneuvers—left me expecting some BJP supporter ‘in the know’ to educate us ‘ignorants’ at some point. That didn’t happen either. Instead, there was massive jubilation over the strikes that must have taken their sleeping victims by surprise.

Aghast at what the uninitiated me could only see as a strike on unarmed civilians, I questioned the action somewhat half-heartedly. Obviously, if they’d really found the terrorists, I definitely wanted them killed because there was no point expecting Pakistan to do anything about them other than offer tacit encouragement. Unsurprisingly, updates from Pakistan expressing grief and rage started flooding the media. It became clear that at least several of the victims were likely innocent—two were children.

To my complete horror, this revelation made no difference to the celebrations over ‘killing terrorists.’ Why it surprised me, though, is unclear in hindsight—countless such celebrations of Muslim deaths are unfortunately routine here, with victims met with hostility instead of sympathy. And these were Pakistani!

India apparently hadn’t expected much in the way of retaliation, as initial claims of our fighters being downed by PAF retaliation were quickly dismissed as propaganda. There was no clear news, and before reports could consolidate, India swiftly blocked a large number of sources that might shed light on the situation. News reporting grew extremely tight-lipped. Still, I remember feeling uneasy, given that we’d had a pilot captured under similar circumstances after Balakot. Stories rarely remain hidden from the curious on the internet, though, and soon I found better sources than the Indian media—foreign military analysts. Combined with the news of Rafale stocks falling while Chengdu stocks rose… the writing was on the wall.

From that moment, I knew that India’s new brand of nationalist optics—inciting outrage to bolster political support—had escalated onto the global stage. The events are common knowledge now, but some deeply disturbing thoughts remain, and they’re worth discussing.

The Ethics of the Initial Strikes

We had no information on the identities of the Pehelgam attack terrorists, so this strike was, at best, aimed at suspected backers. As much as I’d like to see terrorists dead, I’d want to be certain those being killed were, in fact, terrorists. While we didn’t get much explanation from our own government, Pakistani media was blocked, and Indian media didn’t have access to the sites, The New York Times investigated the targets hit.

But such is the nature of nationalistic jingoism infatuated with its own invincibility. It didn’t occur to anyone that killing civilians and targeting religious buildings in another country might be legally and morally indefensible. Even if it had to be done, it could have been a discrete attack or communicated with better messaging. The propaganda factory churned out the names of various terrorists allegedly killed, and supporters readily believed the narrative, never questioning how India could magically know the exact location of over two dozen individuals and target them during a single air-to-ground bombing run and conveniently find them all among terrorists. At one point, anybody killed was automatically a terrorist, including a Kashmiri teacher who died in Pakistani shelling.

Lack of Foresight in Provocation

This action was straight out of the Israel playbook: hitting civilians and then accusing them of harboring terrorists or accusing terrorists of using them as shields. This approach has long been condemned by those with any sense of morality. Attempting it during a time when Israel itself is facing unprecedented criticism for such methods was staggeringly tone-deaf, even from a purely strategic standpoint. Doing it against a nuclear-armed country and openly taunting them with provocations to retaliate was nothing short of suicidal stupidity.

At this point, I believe Indian warmongers imagined that the more Pakistan attacked, the more India could clobber them in the name of defense. Any kind of decency, concern for human life or even simple logic vanished in a frenzy of bloodlust.

The Modi government runs on optics. It didn’t come to power to deliver governance, and it is never held accountable for failing to deliver it. Its supporters will apparently support anything, as long as Hindus are portrayed as India’s rightful citizens and non-supporters may be humiliated with impunity.

The optics of the Indian Air Force delivering bombs to decisively destroy a terrorist threat are certainly compelling. But nobody seemed to have asked: What if the strike didn’t succeed as planned? Perhaps the government assumed its media machine could proclaim victory and silence dissent. But state-serving media has no sway on the global stage, and India ended up as a laughingstock when Pakistan played clips of our hysterical news coverage—declaring Pakistan’s Naval Base at Karachi was destroyed and Islamabad various cities were decimated in various ways—during their global briefing.

At a time when we needed to convince the world of our actions and goals, we failed miserably to even come across as humane with our warmongering media unleashing bloodlust on television screens and credible news sources and journalists blocked by the thousands to create an echo chamber of fake news in India. Such actions do not inspire trust at a time when we needed it the most. Anybody to comment adversely on the war received barrages of abusive comments, not just from anonymous trolls, but also from official accounts of people who should have been far more responsible in national interest.

In an exceptionally embarrassing side note, a TV anchor, Gaurav Arya, expanded his vitriol beyond India and Pakistan by publicly insulting the Iranian foreign minister and calling him a ‘son of a pig’ on live TV, circling his image with a red marker and writing pig in case anybody missed his clever taunt. Channels showed Islamic flags trampled by Indian protesters. All at a time when India needed the international community to see it as morally upright and support it and aggressive with Pakistan over terrorism, and not just for being Muslim.

If the goals seeming to drive the government’s supporters were real, and we wanted to decimate Pakistan or split it into four countries, etc – we certainly hadn’t bothered to collect the support from other countries we’d need to pull it off. If we’d wanted a swift, decisive victory before anybody could intervene, we hadn’t planned for that either and kept taunting, waiting for Pakistan to retaliate. If we didn’t want an escalation, as we claimed, we hadn’t planned for that for sure. And our whole war mania fizzled out with the announcement of the ceasefire by Trump. I don’t think India’s sovereignty has been this badly spanked – ever, where the Prime Minister can launch an operation named to avenge the husband’s killed in an attack and it gets shut down abruptly by the President of aother country – because that’s what the ceasefire amounted to. Within hours, China had underlined “game over” by declaring support for Pakistan in defending itself. And now we’re in a position of having to take much greater risks to assert our dignity or absorb the humiliation. A humiliation Indians had neither asked for, nor knew about until it was too late. What exactly was the planning behind this?

There had been no attempt to set clear expectations and the attacks on the Pakistan airbases simply seemed to imply that India was on its way to conquering Pakistan, which makes no sense. Ground troops of both countries hadn’t moved. But the hysteria made any talk of sense impossible. Expectations were sky-high and jingoism was the only move dwarfing the considerable efforts and successes of the Indian Air Force.

We failed to prevent an IMF loan to Pakistan in a world where Pakistan sponsoring terror doesn’t even have to be explained. Our ceasefire was brokered by the US and announced abruptly by Trump himself in a gigantic departure from India’s insistence that we would not accept third-parties mediating between India and Pakistan. Announced by the President of another country, in a statement calling both countries great nations and completely ignoring India’s stand that Pakistan is a terror sponsoring state. Our Prime Minister hasn’t been seen since, but the ceasefire Trump announced has been diligently withheld, including by covering up several Pakistani attacks since then. What does this mean?

Attacks have not proved successful deterrence against terrorism, but even if we had to opt for them, we should have seen them through instead of agreeing to a ceasefire when we had a clear advantage, only for Pakistan to declare victory and continue ceasefire violations. If we had to escalate, we should have pressed the advantage to some solid concessions before stopping. The political leadership, probably for fear of optics simply caved once the holes in the propaganda started showing. This is not a good position for India.

Vague Goals to begin with

What did this achieve? Nothing. No terrorists were captured or neutralized (no, killing families only counts in gang wars, and the world doesn’t run on kanpatti pe gun), the world saw through our claims, and India was left diplomatically isolated.

But beyond that, what were our goals? Say we don’t need the world to approve and have a big enough army to handle Pakistan ourselves. What happens next in our imagination? With both countries being nuclear powers, and Pakistan warning about it straight off the bat, we wouldn’t be able to defeat Pakistan in any case. If forced into a corner, it would threaten nuclear strikes. But well before that, the world would intervene. Even if the world didn’t intervene, China, with its massive investment in the CPEC and need for the Gwadar port, wouldn’t allow us to defeat Pakistan. And anybody who thinks India can defeat China in a war, let alone China and Pakistan at the same time is completely delusional and not worth discussing.

Get this straight. If we had won – it wouldn’t have mattered – we have the bigger army. we’d have temporarily set Pakistan back, but it wouldn’t last. There was no way to increase prestige here, just massive spending to strike a dramatic pose for a few days at best. No matter how much we won, we’d be fighting a smaller force with surprise on our side. Terror attacks would remain cheaper than outright wars. But losing planes in that skirmish with the smaller force with the world analyzing the clash to study the planes and missiles used, did massive damage. This is the most puzzling thing. We seem to have barged into a no-win situation with no foresight whatsoever. Nobody seems to have given thought to the fact that in all the decades we enjoyed peace, Pakistan’s jets have been flying in the Afghan War alongside some of the world’s best pilots and Balochistani separatists regularly. They are supplied mainly by China with an active investment in protecting their sovereignty, while our arms suppliers are busy with both sides of the Russia-Ukraine war. Why did we even assume that this could only go our way?

So now what? We couldn’t possibly pressure Pakistan into cooperation, because the nature of our strikes forced Pakistan to retaliate in assertion of their sovereignty, the opposite of cooperation. The government would be completely discredited if it didn’t. And indeed, the supporters of the government cheering for war said as much, that India wanted Pakistan to escalate, going so far as to troll anybody who wanted a de-escalation, even when that was India’s claimed stand. So how was this supposed to end if Pakistan couldn’t reasonably be defeated, and de-escalation wasn’t an option? Two options remain – stalemate or defeat. And for that we risked the lives of our forces, of vulnerable citizens along the border. For no achievable worthwhile goal.

The idiots driving the country into a ditch hadn’t stopped for a moment to think beyond the initial dazzling optics. Where did they plan to land this soaring flight of fancy? No clue.

But there will be consequences

Since the words of a US President are such a big deal today, let me borrow from another. Abraham Lincoln had said, “It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and remove all doubt.” While we seem incapable of stopping speaking, at least on the armed forces front, our measured policies served to avoid conflict. At the same time, India’s superiority in numbers was a massive deterrent, even as the needs for modernization, recruitment, funding and so on were present. True, we have a much bigger border than Pakistan, but in a war, we had greater numbers. bigger army, more planes. It was a deterrent against Pakistani adventurism, because Pakistan cannot realistically win against us. But we completely unnecessarily proved that despite our size, we cannot win against them either, because we will be stopped before the larger numbers or enduring power can be an advantage. Pakistan not only has the nukes and godfathers rushing in to protect it, it has a long history of attacking India to capture Kashmir. A goal their fanatics will now believe to be within reach. Operation Sindoor increased the risk of Pakistani attacks – both terror and conventional “limited” wars – by reducing our deterrent power and heaping on humiliating provocation. Just last week, if you’d asked anybody who’d win in a massive dogfight between India and Pakistan with India outnumbering Pakistan, many, Pakistanis included, might have expected it to be India. Well, that’s history now. Regardless of what would happen in truth the next time, the deterrent of a very likely defeat is gone.

Operation Sindoor weakened Pakistan’s already dodgy democracy further, giving more power to their armed forces – who are our real enemies – by making them heroes in the eyes of their people and confirming their propaganda that India is the bogeyman who will attack them any day if not for the Army.

This will also embolden terrorists and strengthen their value to the army, who now have some proof that Pakistan will defend them and India will have to pay heavy costs for retaliation. Because we just proved that it works!!! Organizations like Al Qaeda and ISIS are known to be interested in igniting war. We just showed them too that all they have to do is a terror attack and whether Pakistan did it or not, wants it or not, we will drag both countries into war.

We undermined India’s adamant stand that Kashmir was a bilateral issue. We actually let another country’s president declare a ceasefire on our behalf! All these are precedents. It isn’t a coincidence that Indira Gandhi was trending today.

The need for a sensible plan for Pakistan

As China pointed out recently, India, Pakistan and China are neighbours. And nuclear armed neighbours at that. None of the countries can move away, and they can’t be wiped out without risking wiping out a giant chunk of humanity. It is in our interest to understand this and rather than feed the masses with warmongering and bloodlust, form a vision the country can support productively. Yes, all the arguments are known. Pakistan uses terrorists. We know. But the sooner we accept that we can’t just provoke escalations without knowing we have things under control, the better. India has massive soft power. There was a time when we could use it. We had managed to get Pakistan recognized as a terror sponsoring state and bring pressure through allies and economic strategies.

Our institutions have been hollowed out in the service of one individual and his political party rather than national interest. We’ve treated investigating agencies like an extension of the ruling party’s private detectives and armed forces as a tool for political posturing. This may work for the political profit of one party, but it is created on the backs of a nation and weakens both the nation and the institutions.

Even more importantly, the global isolation on Operation Sindoor should be a lesson that our own actions must be above reproach and we must have enough clarity that we can defend them well on a global stage. Bullying dissent into compliance can only go so far.

Winning or losing is about strength, not righteousness. To defeat terror and have the support of the world, we need to be in the right and operate from careful justice and not flamboyant revenge.

Please, consider the well-being of the country when risking its safety, and not just the political points that can be scored through posturing in the event our forces give up their lives to create a win for the government’s whims.

This is easier said than done, because in India, the rule of law often feels like an alien concept. The volume of outrage frequently delivers results, even when it shouldn’t. Social justice, as it stands, appears to be limited to making vociferous demands on social media. Yes, the irony isn’t lost on me that I’m writing a blog post about this. But hear me out, because I’m trying to revive a conversation that has long been dead in India.

India’s History of Working Around Bad Laws

India has a long history of circumventing poorly designed laws, but this approach only exacerbates the problem and further reinforces subversion as the correct response. This is the route Ranveer himself chose as well. He’s apologised and will likely negotiate the problem away while endorsing the objections against his own speech. At this point, the biggest threats to his freedoms are supporters of his political allies. There is no shortage of influential mediators. If he believed he had a right to speak those words and stood by them, no matter how reprehensible I found his comments, I’d support his right to say them. But that’s not the case. Ranveer has himself acknowledged that his speech was highly inappropriate and isn’t attempting to claim he had a right to say those things. So now, the demands that he not face legal action are essentially demands to make him exempt from the law. You can’t claim he didn’t break the law, because in India, being obscene or offensive itself breaks the law—and there’s no doubt on that front. Those filing cases definitely have valid points.

When laws are vague or unjust, their unequal application becomes a tool for those in power to enforce their will. By allowing such laws to persist and seeking exceptions for specific individuals, we perpetuate a system where justice is arbitrary and the rule of law is replaced by the rule of might.

Let me digress here for a moment. Ranveer Allahabadia is extremely well-connected. He routinely interviews prominent celebrities and has been felicitated by the Prime Minister himself. He has a massive platform and strong ties among influencers and politicians. Even if you’re feeling protective about him, you are neither the support he needs nor the support that can actually do anything to help him. Your voice has been defanged for over a decade, and all you can do is pontificate inconsequentially—and if your voice grows stronger, you’ll have to toe a line or be silenced. So let’s not pretend there’s anything remotely “free speech” about your demands. It’s allowed speech.

If you really care about free speech, you’d do the cause a much greater service by calling for reform.

The Problem with Vague Laws

India’s laws around free speech are notoriously vague. Terms like “offensive,” “obscene,” or “inflammatory” are loosely defined, leaving them open to interpretation—and misuse. This ambiguity means that almost anyone can be accused of breaking the law, depending on who takes offense, and anybody with enough power can abuse others with impunity.

In Ranveer’s case, his comments on India’s Got Talent were deemed offensive by some, leading to legal complaints. But if “offensive” is the standard, then every comedian, journalist, or public figure is perpetually at risk. There’s no reasonable way for anyone to comply with a law that can be interpreted to taste. The solution isn’t to shield Ranveer from prosecution—it’s to demand clarity and fairness in the law itself.

A Free-for-All: Blasphemy, Women’s Commission, and Opportunism

The controversy has turned into a free-for-all, with various groups jumping into the fray for reasons that have little to do with the actual issue. Rajya Sabha MP Priyanka Chaturvedi plans to bring it up for discussion as vulgar and “blasphemous” content—though it’s safe to say the gods are the only ones Ranveer hasn’t verbally stripped at this point. But let’s not expect logic. The Women’s Commission has summoned Ranveer and the contestant to appear on the 17th, despite the fact that neither the contestant was female nor was the joke about women in particular. TV anchors with a long history of fomenting communal hatred during family dinner time are suddenly worried about the influence of a YouTube show on younger generations. This is a classic case of behti Ganga mein haath dho lo—an opportunistic attempt to capitalize on the controversy without any real concern for the matter at hand.

Such actions dilute the seriousness of genuine issues and distract from the core problem: the use and misuse of vague laws to enforce reasonable social norms or suppress free expression.

Indian law does not recognize sexual harassment of men, leaving male victims without recourse. If a judge or someone in a position of power corners a participant with inappropriate sexual questions, it isn’t considered abuse. These are serious issues that deserve attention, but they are being overshadowed by baseless tantrums in the name of free speech. Even if we ignore this, there’s no consideration for the participant’s mother, who likely did not consent for her sex life—and her son’s involvement in it—to become an internet joke. And yes, that’s sexual harassment. Are you sure you’re calling this free speech? Can you explain, then, why the horrific Sulli Deals were not considered free speech?

The Selective Application of Laws

Countless individuals in India have been silenced for using their voice. Journalists and media houses face raids and arrests. Cartoonists and comedians are punished for jokes that dominant voices dislike. Political activists languish in jail for years without trial. This isn’t a new phenomenon, nor is Ranveer uniquely vulnerable.

In fact, Ranveer’s large platform and connections likely insulate him from the worst consequences. The government, eager to maintain his endorsement, will likely find ways to protect him from legal backlash. This isn’t a fight for the voiceless—it’s a fight for a privileged individual who doesn’t need the support of those whose voices have long been rendered inconsequential.

The Real Fight: Reform to Define Vague Terms

The real fight is to define vague terms like “offensive,” “obscene,” and “vulgarity” and to strengthen free speech so that it may truly serve our vision for our rights and be applied uniformly and unambiguously. Whether this means sexualized content cannot be made or whether we finally recognize that the line should be closer to actual harm to individuals, it must not be arbitrary. A politician cannot call for the bodies of a community he’s targeting to be exhumed and raped while a shock-value profiteer’s comment about parents having sex is hounded. Free speech must be protected vigorously, but that protection should extend to everyone—not just high-profile individuals or those who attack political targets.

This controversy could be a catalyst for meaningful change.

Ranveer’s case presents an opportunity to push for legal reform. If he holds his ground, then supporting him makes sense. But if he admits wrongdoing, as he has, demanding that he be exempt from prosecution only reinforces the idea that some are above the law.

Exceptions Undermine Justice

Seeking exceptions for individuals isn’t a fight for rights—it’s coddling. It perpetuates a system where the powerful are shielded from consequences while the marginalized bear the brunt of unjust laws. True justice requires that laws be fair, clear, and applied equally to all.

Conclusion: Change the Law, Don’t Circumvent It

The Ranveer Allahabadia controversy highlights the urgent need for legal reform in India. Vague laws and selective enforcement undermine democracy and stifle free expression. Instead of demanding exceptions for individuals, we must push for systemic change.

If the law is bad, fix it. Don’t seek exceptions—demand justice.

“It is hereby declared that the opponent [society] has committed deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice,” Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission said.

The commission also refuted the society’s claim that the leakage persisted as the tenants had kept plants on the terrace and were watering them. “Admittedly, complainants were the members of the society…. it was the duty of the society to carry out repairs and also to take care of proper maintenance of the row houses owned by the complainants,” the commission said.

Worli residents Latikaand Prakash Chanderkar had moved the district consumer commission against Madhuban Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd in 2017. However, the district commission rejected their complaint in 2018. Subsequently, they moved the state commission.

The complainants submitted they had purchased two-row houses and had been regularly paying monthly service charges including repair and maintenance charges. Complainants contended that in March 2017 they noticed major leakage in the ceiling above the kitchen, bathroom, toilet, and slabs of the first and second floors. They informed the housing society which had carried out waterproofing of all the other units in the colony. The complainants alleged that the society did not fix the leakage and waterproofing of their row houses. They also said that they sent the society a notice on March 2, 2017, but they did not receive a reply. Reminders were sent, but no action was taken.

Complainants alleged that by not carrying out repairs in spite of taking maintenance charges amounted to deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice.

The housing society denied that it had not carried out any repairs. On the contrary, it took a stand that since there were many complaints from the members about the leakage, it had carried out a structural audit in December 2014 and repairs were in progress.

The commission said, “We have carefully gone through the letters sent by the complainant to the opponent [society] from time to time as well as other documents and we find considerable force in the contention advanced by the appellants (complainants).”

Posted in Public Interest by 

Adv. Sulaiman Bhimani Legal Consultant

Expert in RERA & Consumer Matters, 

Co-operative Scty Matters, Deem Conveyance, 

Family Matters, Property Disputes. 

Human and Civil Rights Activists

President Citizens Justice Forum

https://citizensjusticeforum.in

WhatsApp +91 99877 43676 

E: Mailcitizensjusticeforum@gmail.com

YouTube Channelhttps://tinyurl.com/CitizensJusticeForum

Link to the Article

CourtesyTOI

CourtesyTOI 

The relief for 36 flat buyers in a Kolkata housing complex, litigating since 2006 against RNR Enterprise builder, came from a bench of Justices S R Bhat and Dipankar Datta, who criticized the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) for saying that the flat buyers should get CC for the structure as they took possession prior to the authorities issuing the certificate.

The SC said, “True it is, the appellants (flat buyers) ought not to have taken possession without the completion certificate. However, that was not a valid ground not to direct the respondents (builder) to apply for and obtain the completion certificate as required by law. ”

Under the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, it is the obligation of the builder to apply for the completion certificate. “It is no part of the flat owner’s duty to apply for a completion certificate,” it said. The housing complex is on Kailash Ghosh Road.

The flat owners had also complained that the builder promised many amenities but failed to provide these, including a playground, community hall, and a lake on adjacent land, which never came into existence. The builder had said that as the flat buyers had taken possession of their properties on an ‘as is where is’ basis, they are not entitled to any of the amenities.

The SC said the flat owners, by registering their properties, have not forfeited any right over the promised amenities which were not provided by the builder. “It was the duty of the NCDRC to set things right,” it said.

“We are constrained to observe that the respondents (builder) have been let off by the NCDRC in a manner contrary to law. This is an appropriate case where the complaint of the appellants (flat owners) ought to be remitted to the NCDRC for taking a relook into the complaint in accordance with the law. It is ordered accordingly,” the apex court bench directed the commission.

However, it also faulted the flat owners for taking possession even before the builder could get the competition certificate for the housing complex. “Undoubtedly, they have also been on the wrong side of law by taking possession of their respective flats without the completion certificate, whatever might be the compulsion,” the SC said and declined to direct NCDRC to decide on the compensation component on account of deficiency of amenities.

Posted in Public Interest by
Adv. Sulaiman Bhimani Legal Consultant
Expert in RERA & Consumer Matters,
Co-operative Scty Matters, Deem Conveyance,
Family Matters, Property Disputes.
Human and Civil Rights Activists
President Citizens Justice Forum
https://citizensjusticeforum.in
YouTube Channel https://tinyurl.com/CitizensJusticeForum
WhatsApp +91 99877 43676
E: Mail citizensjusticeforum@gmail.com  
Link to the SC Judgment 

The Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority(MahaRERA) Chairperson Ajoy Mehta in a recently passed order, related to Kohinoor city residential project, has provided relief to an aggrieved homebuyer. The regulatory authority directed the builder to pay interest on the amount received and carry out an agreement of sale with the buyer which he was avoiding to date.

The case is about a homebuyer named Arif Merchant, Faraz Trading company Pvt Ltd approached MahaRERA against Kohinoor developers for delaying possession of their booked flat.
The homebuyer had booked a flat for a considerable amount of Rs 1.56 crore. Of which he already paid Rs 73.66 lakh. Wherein it was agreed that the possession will be handed over in 2016. Later on the developer following the formation of MahaRERA registered the project and extended the deadline to 2019 and further to 2021.
Since the said developer delayed the project the buyer approached MahaRERA seeking relief.
The real estate regulatory authority after considering both parties’ submissions directed the developer to pay interest on the amount received and also sign an agreement of sale.
The complainant was represented by Advocate Sharon Fernandez from The Law Suits.The buyer contended that despite accepting 45 per cent of the consideration amount no agreement of sale was signed further violating the RERA Act. Also, they are eligible for interest on the amount paid under RERA Act. Further contending that the reasons cited by the developer for delay are not acceptable.
The developer had cited the pandemic which was opposed by the buyer as the possession was agreed upon in 2016 much before the pandemic. Also, the developer had said the delay was due to inter alia being the Hard Rock and Hume Pipe encountered at the time of laying the foundation or excavation, however, such and other reasons are merely an afterthought as the developer was silent on this aspect and did not inform the Complainants about the same, more so reasons attributed for the delay are part and parcel of the construction business and the developer having repute and years of experience were well aware of it and shouldn’t have taken 7-8 years (from the time of booking) to complete the construction of a 10 storey building the buyer replied.
Advocate Sulaiman Bhimani of The Law Suit said that MahaRERA offered interest and directed him to sign the sale deed. But the developer had asked to pay the stamp duty fees which were 2 per cent last year. Since the project has been delayed now the buyer has to pay a stamp duty of 5 per cent so there is a loss of an additional 3 per cent, he said.

Courtesy THE FREE PRESS JOURNAL 

POSTED IN PUBLIC INTEREST BY

Adv. Sulaiman Bhimani Legal Consultant
Expert in RERA & Co-operative Scty Matters,Family Matters, Property Disputes.Human and Civil Rights Activists
President Citizens Justice Forumhttps://citizensjusticeforum.in/