Rahul Gandhi attacks govt on Cyprus' 'golden passport' scheme
asks why brothers of 'param mitra' left country in 'Amrit Kaal'
New Delhi, Nov 15: Former Congress president Rahul Gandhi on Wednesday questioned why the brothers of the "param mitra" left India during "Amrit Kaal" after reports that some businessmen, including Gautam Adani's elder brother Vinod Adani, were among the 66 Indians who got the "golden passport" in Cyprus.
"Why did the brothers of the 'param mitra' leave India during 'Amrit Kaal'? 'Golden passport' means a golden opportunity for theft -- steal public money, form a shell company and spend abroad," Gandhi said in a post in Hindi on X.
He said this following media reports that Vinod Adani and Pankaj Oswal were among the 66 Indians who got the "golden passport". The "golden passport" scheme was also called the "Cyprus Investment Programme" after it was introduced in 2007 and it facilitated the grant of Cypriot citizenship to financially prominent individuals, thereby bringing in foreign direct investments (FDI) into the country.
Ruling Bharatiya Janata Party's (BJP) IT cell in-charge Amit Malviya hit back at Gandhi, saying it was under the Congress-led United Progressive Alliance (UPA) government that the India-Cyprus tax treaty created a haven for tax evaders.
"You practically rolled out the red carpet for investors to bypass Capital Gains tax, with Cyprus not imposing such taxes either. Add to that the low withholding tax rate, and you have got yourself a perfect recipe for creating a tax haven, luring businesses and individuals to funnel money into Cyprus.
"But when the BJP led NDA came into power, we saw through this charade and took immediate, decisive action. In 2016, we didn't just tweak the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) with Cyprus; we overhauled it. Our revision, effective retrospectively from, Nov 2013, was a game-changer. It shifted the taxation of capital gains right back to where the income is made -- the source country -- rather than letting investors hide behind the veil of their country of residence. This wasn't just a policy shift; it was a direct challenge to the tax avoidance circus you had running," Malviya claimed in a post on X.
Responding to Gandhi's post on the microblogging website, he said, "Let's talk about the grandfathering clause we introduced for investments made before April 1, 2017. It wasn't just a clause; it was a statement. We ensured a fair transition to the new regime, where capital gains would be taxed in the investor's country of residence for investments made before this deadline."
"This shift was monumental. It wasn't just about fair taxation; it slammed the door shut on using offshore entities for tax evasion. The so-called 'Golden Passport' that you accuse us of promoting? It's a relic of your governance, a symbol of the opaque, underhand dealings you endorsed," he said.
"So, let us set the record straight. Those who have left are your 'Param Mitras'. Their departure is on you. Your legacy of promoting tax havens and opaque financial practices is what drove them out. Our reforms have not only plugged these gaps but have showcased our unwavering commitment to transparent and accountable tax governance. Your accusations don't just fall flat; they're a stark reminder of your party's dubious past," Malviya claimed.
'अमृत काल' में 'परम मित्र' के भाई भारत छोड़ कर क्यों भागे?
— Rahul Gandhi (@RahulGandhi) November 15, 2023
'गोल्डन पासपोर्ट' मतलब चोरी का सुनहरा मौका - जनता का पैसा चुराओ, Shell कम्पनी बनाओ और विदेश में उड़ाओ। pic.twitter.com/ueXiWqPKvD
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
Deep societal faultlines persist despite 75 years of independence: Justice Ujjal Bhuyan
Judge cites denial of home to Muslim girl, opposition to Dalit women cooking mid-day meals
Hyderabad, February 23, 2026: Supreme Court judge Justice Ujjal Bhuyan has said that despite repeated affirmations of constitutional morality by courts, deep societal faultlines rooted in caste and religious discrimination continue to shape everyday realities in India.
Speaking at a seminar on “Constitutional Morality and the Role of District Judiciary” organised by the Telangana Judges Association and the Telangana State Judicial Academy in Hyderabad, Justice Bhuyan reflected on the gap between constitutional ideals and social practices.
He cited a recent instance involving his daughter’s friend, a PhD scholar at a private university in Noida, who was denied accommodation in South Delhi after her surname revealed her Muslim identity. According to Justice Bhuyan, the landlady bluntly informed her that no accommodation was available once her religious background became known.
In another example from Odisha, he referred to resistance by some parents to the government’s mid-day meal programme because the food was prepared by Dalit women employed as cooks. He noted that some parents had objected aggressively and refused to allow their children to consume meals cooked by members of the Scheduled Caste community.
Describing these incidents as “the tip of the iceberg,” Justice Bhuyan said they reveal how far society remains from the benchmark of constitutional morality even 75 years into the Republic. He observed that while the Constitution lays down standards of equality and dignity, the morality practised within homes and communities often diverges sharply from those values.
He emphasised that constitutional morality requires governance through the rule of law rather than the rule of popular opinion. Referring to the evolution of the doctrine through judicial decisions, he cited Naz Foundation v Union of India, in which the Delhi High Court read down Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code, holding that popular morality cannot restrict fundamental rights under Article 21. Though the judgment was later overturned in Suresh Kumar Koushal v Naz Foundation, the Supreme Court ultimately restored and expanded the principle in Navtej Singh Johar v Union of India, affirming that constitutional morality must prevail over majoritarian views.
“In our constitutional scheme, it is the constitutionality of the issue before the court that is relevant, not the dominant or popular view,” he said.
Justice Bhuyan also addressed the functioning of the district judiciary, underlining that trial courts are the first point of contact for most litigants and form the foundation of the justice delivery system. He stressed that due importance must be given to the recording of evidence and adjudication of bail matters.
Highlighting the role of High Courts, he said their supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution is intended as a shield to correct grave jurisdictional errors, not as a mechanism to substitute the discretion or factual appreciation of trial judges.
He recalled that several distinguished judges, including Justice H R Khanna, Justice A M Ahmadi, and Justice Fathima Beevi, began their careers in the district judiciary.
On representation within the judicial system, Justice Bhuyan noted that Telangana has made significant strides in gender inclusion. Out of a sanctioned strength of 655 judicial officers in the Telangana Judicial Service, 478 are currently serving, of whom 283 are women, exceeding 50 per cent representation. He added that members of Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, minority communities, and persons with disabilities are also represented in the state’s judiciary.
He observed that greater representation of women, marginalised communities, persons with disabilities, and sexual minorities would help make the judiciary more inclusive and reflective of India’s diversity. “The judiciary must represent all the colours of the rainbow and become a rainbow institution,” he said.
Justice Bhuyan also referred to the recent restoration by the Supreme Court of the requirement of a minimum three years of practice at the Bar for entry-level judicial posts. While acknowledging that the requirement ensures practical exposure, he cautioned that its impact on women aspirants, especially those from rural or small-town backgrounds facing social and financial constraints, would need to be carefully observed over time.
Concluding his address, he reiterated that the justice system must strive to bridge the gap between constitutional ideals and lived realities, ensuring that the rule of law remains paramount.
