During four decades (1950-1990) of India's economic development; Public sector played the dominating role in every

economic sphere. However, the public sector had overgrown itself and its shortcomings started manifesting in terms of
low efficiency, effectiveness and economy. Public Sector Enterprises (PSEs) are criticized for inefficiency, poor
management, and inadequate profitability despite heavy investments. They fail to improve product quality and social
services. Solutions to these problems can be founded in two alternative ways:

(i) government undertakes complete overhauling of the policies of PSEs, provide them full/ perfect autonomy,
withdraws protection and pushes them forward to face competition.
Government has granted total autonomy, to few PSEs, while determining their targets of quality, quantity and
accountability. NTPC, Maruti, ONGC and Air India have already been granted total autonomy. In the year 2000, such
autonomy was given to 108 PSEs by signing MOUs.

(ii) alternative can be privatisation of PSEs: Private sector consists of economic units, where production resources are
owned and controlled by private persons. In mixed economic system like the one we have in India, all enterprises of
the private sector are subject to general supervision of the government. Private sector companies, can be solo
entrepreneurial units, or partnership firms or joint stock companies or Multinational Corporations (MNCs) or
cooperative societies. In India, private sector predominates in agricultural activities, Micro Small and Medium
Enterprises (MSMEs), large scale manufacturing units like Tata Motors and Reliance Industries, construction of
dwellings (like Prateek Developers), hotels, restaurants, banking, transport retail as well as wholesale trading, firms,
fine arts and crafts.
Since the inception of New Industrial Policy (NEP) 1991, the role of private sector has increased manifold. It has been
mushrooming in all forms of economic activity. Private sector can be classified into three broad categories:
(i) Large-scale industrial units
(i) Micro-small and medium enterprises (MSMEs)
iii) Unorganised production, trading and service units

Process of privatisation:

A. Denationalisation involving transfer of the state ownership of productive resources to the private
B. Entry of private sector enterprises into exclusively reserved areas for public sector.
C. Transfer of management and control of PSEs (fully or partially) e.g, railways, steel posts and telegraph, etc. to the
private sector.
D. By restricting the scope of diversification of existing PSEs.

Objectives of privatisation:

(1) Improvement in Financial Status of the Government through:

(i) By selling PSEs and/or their assets, to private persons: Privatisation involves selling Public Sector Enterprises
(PSEs) or their assets to private entities to improve efficiency and profitability. For example, the Indian government
privatized Air India by selling it to the Tata Group, reducing financial losses and improving operational efficiency in the
aviation sector.

ii) By enabling enterprises to raise internal resources: Privatisation enables enterprises to generate internal resources
by improving efficiency, reducing costs, and increasing profitability. For example, Indian Railways introduced private
participation in freight corridors and station redevelopment, allowing it to raise funds internally, modernize
infrastructure, and enhance service quality.

(2) Improvement in Performance of an Enterprise through:

(i) Raising efficiency: Privatisation enhances competition, compelling enterprises to optimize resources and reduce
inefficiencies. It minimizes bureaucratic delays and wasteful expenditure, leading to better productivity and profitability.
Market-driven operations ensure cost-effective management, improved service delivery, and innovation, ultimately
enhancing overall economic growth and consumer satisfaction.

ii) Requiring enterprises to fulfill performance targets: Enterprises must achieve specific goals related to production,
revenue generation, and consumer satisfaction. Setting clear performance benchmarks ensures accountability and
efficiency. Meeting these targets enhances competitiveness, improves service quality, and drives profitability,

(iii) By making enterprise more responsive to consumers in terms of quantity, quality,

diversity and services: Consumer responsiveness ensures that enterprises cater to customer needs by enhancing
product quality, offering diverse choices, and improving service standards. Private firms prioritize consumer
satisfaction by adopting advanced technology, efficient supply chains, and competitive pricing. This leads to better
customer experiences, increased demand, and overall market growth.

(iv) By providing greater relief from public sector financial constraints: private sector Reduces the financial burden of
inefficient public sector enterprises allowing the government to allocate resources more effectively. Funds saved can
be redirected towards essential services like healthcare, education, and infrastructure, improving overall economic
growth and social welfare while reducing fiscal deficits and government liabilities.

(v) By allowing more managerial autonomy.

Rational and objectives of disinvestment: The USSR's collapse in the late 1980s, followed by Eastern European
countries, shook faith in the public sector. This led to large-scale privatization of state-owned assets. India also
scrutinized its public sector enterprises, leading to disinvestment to avoid using taxpayer money to cover losses.

Spelling out the rationale for disinvestment, the ministry of disinvestment, outlines the following objectives:
(1) Public resources unlocking: it focuses on releasing the public resources locked up in non strategic PSEs and to
utilise the same for enhancing basic health, family welfare, primary education and social and economic reforms.

(2) to check further outflow of public resources locked up in non strategic PSEs: To prevent further outflow of public
resources from non-strategic PSEs, such as loss-making enterprises, the government can implement privatization,
mergers, or restructuring to redirect funds towards critical public welfare sectors. For example, Air India was fully
disinvested to transfer it to a private buyer

(3) to bring down the amount of public debt: India aims to lower public debt through strategies such as increasing tax
revenues, streamlining spending via subsidy reforms, boosting economic growth, and accelerating disinvestment and
monetization of assets.
Eg: Privatizing BSNL (Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited)

(4) to shift the commercial risk to private sector: Privatization shifts commercial risk to the private sector, incentivizing
efficient operation and maintenance. For example, privatizing airports like Delhi's Indira Gandhi International Airport
(IGIA) through Public-Private Partnerships (PPP) transfers operational risks.

(5) to release all tangible and non tangible (such as manpower) locked up in public resources in PSEs for social
sectors, where these are urgently needed: for eg Selling government stake in banks, like IDBI Bank, frees up capital
for education and healthcare initiatives.
CRITIQUE FOR DISINVESTMENT: Critics of disinvestment, like George Fernandes, raised several concerns:

1. Private Monopolies: Critics argue that privatization may create private monopolies.
Example: Concerns over reduced competition in the telecom sector after BSNL’s privatization.

2. Job Losses: Disinvestment may lead to layoffs and reduced job security.
Example: Air India’s privatization raised concerns about job cuts.*

3. Public Interest: Critics believe privatization focuses on profit, not public welfare.
Example: BPCL’s privatization raised worries over increasing fuel prices.*

4. Lack of Fair Process: Disinvestment procedures lack transparency, leading to manipulation.

Example: Questions raised over transparency in the sale of Air India.*

5. Weakening PSUs: Critics argue PSUs should be strengthened through mergers, not sales.
Example: Hindustan Zinc’s privatization weakened the PSU’s ability to compete globally.*
Arguments Establishing That Robert Cannot Be Held Guilty Under Section 69 of the Bharatiya
Nyaya Sanhita, 2023

Introduction

The case filed by Rochelle against Robert hinges on allegations of deception and false promises regarding
marriage. However, under Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, which deals with sexual
intercourse obtained under a false promise of marriage, Robert cannot be held guilty. The key requirement
of this provision is that the accused must have intentionally misled the complainant into consenting to
intercourse solely on a false promise of marriage. The following arguments explain why Robert’s actions do
not satisfy this legal requirement, supported by relevant landmark Indian case laws.

Argument 1: The Relationship Was Consensual from the Beginning

One of the most critical aspects of this case is that Rochelle and Robert were involved in a long-term,
mutually consensual relationship that began in 2019. Throughout this period, they engaged in sexual
relations multiple times without any explicit condition of marriage being a prerequisite. Several facts clearly
indicate that this was not a case of deception:

Firstly, the relationship lasted nearly five years, which strongly suggests a genuine bond rather than any
form of coercion. If the relationship were rooted in deceit, it would not have endured for so long.

Secondly, there were numerous instances of sexual intimacy over the years, and it is evident that
Rochelle's consent was never dependent on a promise of marriage. She never raised concerns of coercion
or manipulation during the relationship, nor did she voice any objections at the time of their sexual
encounters. Instead, her allegations suddenly arose only after Robert married another woman, raising
serious doubts about her motives—suggesting her actions were rooted in spite and vengeance, not
genuine grievance.

Thirdly, the conversations they had about marriage were always part of a broader, ongoing discussion
rather than a legally binding promise. Robert’s statements about the future were expressions of affection,
not fraudulent claims made to manipulate her into sex. This was a relationship built on mutual
understanding, not manipulation.

In Uday v. State of Karnataka (2003) 4 SCC 46, the Supreme Court ruled that when a mature woman
willingly consents to a relationship, she cannot later claim she was deceived simply because the
relationship did not culminate in marriage.

●​ In Kaini Rajan v. State of Kerala (2013) 9 SCC 113, the court emphasized that a long-standing
consensual relationship does not constitute rape or deception under false promises of marriage
unless there is clear evidence that the accused never intended to marry from the outset.
●​ In Deepak Gulati v. State of Haryana (2013) 7 SCC 675, the court clarified that an individual
entering a relationship in good faith and later changing their mind about marriage cannot be held
criminally liable.

Thus, since Rochelle engaged in intercourse without coercion and was in a long-standing relationship,
Robert cannot be held guilty under Section 69.
Argument 2: No False Promise of Marriage at the Time of Consent

For an offense under Section 69, there must be a clear false promise of marriage. Robert’s statements
about marriage were genuine expressions of affection, not deceit. Rochelle’s attempt to frame these as
false promises was not only misguided but also manipulative, as their relationship was based on mutual
affection, not exploitation or fraud.

●​ In Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v. State of Maharashtra (2019) 9 SCC 608, the Supreme Court held
that if the promise of marriage was not false at the outset and circumstances later changed, the
accused cannot be held guilty.
●​ In Anurag Soni v. State of Chhattisgarh (2019) 13 SCC 1, the court ruled that when both parties
voluntarily enter into a sexual relationship with full awareness that marriage is uncertain, the man
cannot be accused of deception if he later decides not to marry.
●​ In Tilak Raj v. State of Himachal Pradesh (2016) 4 SCC 140, the Supreme Court reaffirmed that
deception under the pretext of marriage can only be established if there is proof that the accused
never intended to marry from the very beginning.

Robert’s statements regarding marriage were made in good faith, and there is no evidence that he
intentionally misled Rochelle solely for sexual relations.

Argument 3: Changing Intentions Do Not Constitute Criminality

Robert and Rochelle were in a long-term, consensual relationship beginning in 2019, with Robert
expressing a commitment to marriage. However, by 2024, Robert's personal and career aspirations,
including plans to study abroad, led him to decide against marrying Rochelle. This shift in his intentions
was driven by his desire to focus on his future, not any deceptive motive. For Robert to be criminally liable
under Section 69, it would need to be proven that he intentionally misled Rochelle solely to avoid marriage,
which is not the case here. His change of mind was based on genuine personal goals and not a fraudulent
attempt to deceive Rochelle.

●​ In Maheshwar Tigga v. State of Jharkhand (2020) 10 SCC 108, the Supreme Court ruled that a
change of mind due to personal or financial reasons does not automatically constitute deception
under false promises of marriage.
●​ In Shivashankar v. State of Karnataka (2022) SCC OnLine SC 1271, the court stated that a failed
relationship or a breakup cannot be equated with a false promise of marriage. Robert, like the
accused in this case, experienced disappointment due to Rochelle's immature behavior.
●​ In Dileep v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2021) 2 SCC 11, the court reaffirmed that an accused cannot
be punished simply because he decided against marriage at a later stage.

Since Robert’s change in decision was based on his desire to focus on his career and not due to any
fraudulent intent, he cannot be held guilty.

Argument 4: Delay in Filing the Complaint Weakens the Case

Rochelle’s sudden complaint in July 2024, after learning about Robert’s marriage to Rihanna, reeks of
malice and manipulation rather than genuine victimhood. If she had truly believed she was deceived, she
would have acted immediately after their breakup in February 2024. Instead, she remained silent until
Robert moved on, proving this case is an act of retaliation fueled by jealousy and resentment. It is also
highly plausible that Rochelle was manipulated by Sebastien, who informed her about Robert’s marriage in
a manner designed to provoke outrage, gaslighting her into taking legal action.

●​ In Tameezuddin v. State of UP (2009) 17 SCC 567, the Supreme Court emphasized that an
inordinate delay in filing a sexual offense complaint creates doubts about the genuineness of the
allegations.
●​ In Ramdas v. State of Maharashtra (2007) 2 SCC 170, the court ruled that unexplained delays in
reporting alleged sexual offenses weaken the prosecution’s case.
●​ In Kamal Kishore v. State of Delhi (2019) SCC OnLine Del 8895, it was held that delay in reporting
an alleged offense, especially after a breakup, raises the possibility of a complaint being motivated
by revenge rather than genuine grievance.

Since Rochelle did not raise any allegations until after Robert married another woman, it suggests that the
complaint is retaliatory rather than based on an actual offense under Section 69.

Argument 5: No Coercion or Force Was Used Against Rochelle

Rochelle’s claims of coercion are unfounded. Throughout their nearly five-year relationship, she
consistently engaged in consensual acts, making her own choices. There is no evidence of threats or
manipulation from Robert; any suggestion of coercion is contradicted by her active participation. Her
allegations, emerging only after Robert moved on, seem motivated by resentment rather than genuine
grievance.

Additionally, Rochelle willingly decided to undergo an abortion, showing she had autonomy in her
decisions. This further disproves any notion of coercion, as she actively participated in making critical life
choices.

In Madan Lal v. State of J&K (1997) 7 SCC 677, the Supreme Court ruled that when consent is voluntary
and free from coercion, subsequent allegations of deception cannot hold ground.

In Rameshwar v. State of Rajasthan (1952) AIR 54 SC 54, the court observed that consent obtained
through emotional persuasion in a relationship does not amount to coercion or force.

In State of U.P. v. Naushad (2013) 16 SCC 651, the court emphasized that only cases where the woman’s
consent was obtained solely due to deliberate fraud or threat fall under false promise of marriage
provisions.

Rochelle’s consent was given willingly, and there was no force, fraud, or coercion involved, making it clear
that Robert cannot be held guilty.

conclusion:

Rochelle’s allegations against Robert are nothing more than a vindictive attempt to settle personal
grievances. Their relationship, spanning nearly five years, was entirely consensual with no signs of
coercion or deceit. Her claim only surfaced after Robert moved on, raising doubts about her true intentions.
Her voluntary abortion further undermines her claims of force or manipulation.
**Additional Statement:**

The defense counsel strongly believes that Rochelle’s malicious actions not only lack merit but should be
met with legal consequences. We propose prosecuting Rochelle under the following sections of the
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023:

1. **Section 404 (False Claims)** – Rochelle has fabricated false allegations of coercion to damage
Robert’s reputation. Her claims, emerging after his marriage, are driven by jealousy and revenge. Under
Section 404, such baseless accusations warrant legal consequences.

2. **Section 500 (Defamation)** – Rochelle’s baseless accusations have severely damaged Robert’s
reputation. Her malicious claims, unsupported by evidence, fall under Section 500 for defamation. These
false statements clearly aim to harm his character.

3. **Section 426 (Misuse of Legal Process)** – Rochelle’s delayed complaint, filed after learning of Robert’s
new relationship, is a clear abuse of the legal system. This manipulative act for emotional retaliation
warrants prosecution under Section 426 for misusing legal processes.

The defense counsel urges the court to consider these sections when assessing Rochelle’s motives and
actions, which were neither genuine nor substantiated by any credible evidence.