Evolution of BRICS and India’s Position during UPA Era and Modi Era

BRICS formally originated in September 2006 when the foreign ministers of Brazil, Russia, India, and China met on the sidelines of the United Nations General Assembly. However, the concept actually dates back to 2001, when Goldman Sachs economist Jim O'Neill coined the acronym "BRIC" to identify the four rapidly growing economies poised to dominate the global economy by 2050.

The group solidified into a formal political alliance when it held its inaugural leaders' summit in Yekaterinburg, Russia, in June 2009.

Over the years, the bloc transitioned into BRICS+ through several waves of expansion aimed at amplifying the voice of the Global South and counterbalancing Western-dominated global institutions:

📅 Timeline of BRICS Expansion

• 2010 (The First Expansion): South Africa was invited to join the alliance. It officially attended its first summit in 2011, shifting the acronym from BRIC to BRICS.
• 2024 (The Major Expansion): Following invitations at the 2023 Johannesburg summit, four new countries formally joined the bloc: Egypt, Ethiopia, Iran, and the United Arab Emirates (UAE). (Note: Argentina was also invited but declined following a change in government, and Saudi Arabia was invited but deferred its formal acceptance).
• 2025 (Southeast Asian Footprint): Indonesia officially became a full member, making it the first Southeast Asian nation to join the core group.
• 2025–2026 (Partner Country Tier): The bloc introduced a "Partner Country" status to include nations that cooperate closely with the group without full membership. These partners include Belarus, Bolivia, Cuba, Kazakhstan, Malaysia, Nigeria, Thailand, Uganda, Uzbekistan, and Vietnam.

Today, the expanded alliance represents a massive portion of the world's population and global economic output, continuing its push toward a multipolar global financial system.

The evolution of India's role within BRICS highlights a strategic transition from seeking a voice in global governance (2006–2014) to actively shaping the global order and offering tangible solutions (2014–2026).

Here is a direct comparison of India's contributions, focus, and diplomatic posture under the two governments:

Feature	UPA Government (2006–2014)	Modi Government (2014–2026)
Core Diplomatic Posture	Focused heavily on multilateral reforms, establishing equal footing with global entities, and using BRICS to push for structural changes in the IMF and World Bank.	Driven by strategic autonomy and multi-alignment. India balances ties between Western-led forums (like the Quad) and the expanded BRICS+ without compromising national interests.
Major Institutional Footprint	Led the groundwork and negotiations for the New Development Bank (NDB) and hosted India’s first BRICS summit in New Delhi (2012).	Actively spearheaded BRICS expansion (welcoming Egypt, Ethiopia, Iran, UAE, and Indonesia as members by 2025–2026). Currently holds the 2026 BRICS Presidency.
Economic Context & Stature	India's economy faced skepticism toward the end of this era, frequently categorized by international media as one of the "Fragile Five" economies.	India transitioned into a global economic bright spot, outperforming most BRICS peers in industrial production growth and rising to a top global startup and fintech hub.
Key Contributions	Emphasized South-South cooperation, local-currency trade frameworks, and establishing baseline economic consultation among the five founding nations.	Exported Digital Public Infrastructure (DPI) blueprints (like UPI and CoWIN), operationalized the BRICS Counter-Terrorism Action Plan, and formed the Global Biofuels Alliance.

1) 2006–2014: Building the Foundation (UPA Government)

During the United National Progressive Alliance (UPA) years led by Prime Minister Dr. Manmohan Singh, India viewed BRICS primarily as a diplomatic shield and negotiating forum to contest the post-Cold War asymmetry in global financial architectures.

• Institutionalizing the Bloc: India was a key actor when the foreign ministers first met in 2006 and when the first formal leaders' summit occurred in 2009. Under UPA, India pushed to ensure that the group shifted from an academic economic term into an operational political entity.
• The New Development Bank (NDB): India pushed back against a completely China-dominated financial model, successfully negotiating for equal shareholding among founding members when laying out the framework for the NDB (formalized in mid-2014).
• Focus on Multilateralism: The diplomacy focused on issuing joint communiqués demanding that Western institutions like the IMF rebalance voting quotas to give emerging markets a proper seat at the table.

2) 2014–2026: Assertive Leadership & Solutions (Modi Government)

Under Prime Minister Narendra Modi, India's role transformed from a participant seeking systemic changes into a global rule-maker and bridge builder.

• The Voice of the Global South: Following its successful G20 presidency in 2023, India leveraged BRICS to project itself as the principal advocate for developing countries. It ensured that expansions in 2024 and 2025 included robust representation from Africa, the Middle East, and Southeast Asia.
• Digital Public Infrastructure (DPI) & Tech Leadership: India actively shifted the alliance's focus toward functional technological platforms. It shared open-source tech blueprints—such as India's unified payment interface (UPI)—offering alternative cross-border fintech tools to the Global South.
• Countering Biases & Hard Security: India took the lead on the BRICS Counter-Terrorism Working Group. It successfully embedded clauses on targeted crackdowns on cross-border terrorism into BRICS declarations. Additionally, India maintains strict boundaries to prevent BRICS from turning into an anti-Western or overly China-centric vehicle.
• 2026 Presidency: India assumed the BRICS Presidency on January 1, 2026. Operating under the theme "Building for Resilience, Innovation, Cooperation and Sustainability," India is driving a "humanity-first" agenda focused on equitable trade and green growth

The comparison between India’s participation in BRICS under the UPA government (2006–2014) and the Modi government (2014–2026) reveals a shift from defensive multilateralism to assertive leadership.

Under the UPA, India used the bloc primarily as a diplomatic shield to demand reforms in Western-led institutions.

Under the Modi government, India has leveraged BRICS as a platform to project its own global solutions, championed the Global South, and actively prevented the group from turning into an anti-Western, China-dominated alliance.

Direct Strategic Comparison

Dimension	UPA Government (2006–2014)	Modi Government (2014–2026)
Primary Objective	Reforming existing systems. India sought to rebalance voting quotas in Western-dominated institutions like the IMF and the World Bank.	Creating parallel avenues & alternatives. India positions itself as a "Vishwa Mitra" (friend of the world), balancing ties between the West and the Global South.
Geopolitical Posture	Risk-averse and consensus-driven. India focused heavily on solidarity within the core group (BRIC/BRICS) and avoided projecting overt geopolitical rivalries.	Assertive and multi-aligned. India manages severe bilateral friction with China while simultaneously engaging in BRICS, the Quad, and the G20.
Institutional Legacy	Co-founding the New Development Bank (NDB). India secured equal voting rights for all founding members, blocking initial Chinese attempts to hold a majority stake.	Spearheading BRICS+ Expansion. India championed the institutionalization of "Partner Countries" and full expansions (2024–2025) to amplify trusted regional partners.
Core Contribution	Economic diplomacy. Mainstreamed South-South cooperation and established baseline financial safety nets like the Contingent Reserve Arrangement (CRA).	Digital & Security Architecture. Exported India's Digital Public Infrastructure (DPI) like UPI, and drove the BRICS Counter-Terrorism Action Plan.

Key Analytical Differences

1. Shift from Economic Focus to Geopolitical Balancing

 

• UPA Era: India's involvement was deeply tied to its economic identity as a rising market. However, toward 2013–2014, domestic economic slowdowns and inclusion in the "Fragile Five" weakened India's bargaining position within the bloc, allowing China to take a more dominant posture. 
• Modi Era: Backed by a rapidly growing economy and rising geopolitical stature, India's participation became highly strategic. India uses BRICS to engage with the Global South while maintaining close security partnerships with the West (such as the Quad). It ensures BRICS remains a "non-Western" forum rather than an "anti-Western" weapon for China or Russia.

2. Managing the "China Factor"

 

• UPA Era: India sought cooperation with China within BRICS to build a unified front against Western trade and climate policies. Bilateral border tensions (like the 2013 Depsang standoff) were generally kept separate from BRICS multilateral negotiations.
• Modi Era: Following major border clashes (like Galwan in 2020), India's approach inside BRICS grew far more vigilant. India has consistently blocked Chinese attempts to use BRICS to promote its Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) or push a single-currency system that would project the Chinese Yuan as an alternative to the US Dollar. Instead, India successfully advocated for trading in national local currencies.

3. Institutional Expansion and Global South Leadership

 

• UPA Era: India preferred a compact, tight-knit group, reluctantly agreeing only to the inclusion of South Africa in 2010 to give the bloc a continental African voice.
• Modi Era: India actively drove the historic BRICS+ expansions of 2024 and 2025. By backing the inclusion of nations like the UAE, Egypt, Iran, Ethiopia, and Indonesia, India expanded its own strategic footprints across the Middle East, Africa, and Southeast Asia, preventing the expansion from being dictated solely by Beijing.

 

Dr. Subhash Chandra – NCLT Order analysis: The specific observations of the Technical Member regarding the collusive nature of the transactions

In this article, I try to bring out the specific observations of the Technical Member regarding the collusive nature of the transactions.

 

Introduction

 

During the Personal Insolvency Resolution Process (PIRP) of the Personal Guarantor (PG), Dr. Subhash Chandra, the Hon’ble Member (Technical) of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) raised critical concerns and made specific observations regarding the procedural irregularities, lack of due diligence, and the potentially collusive nature of the transactions and claims admitted by the Resolution Professional (RP). While the Judicial Member took a more literal approach to the statutory definitions, the Technical Member focused heavily on the substance of the transactions, the conduct of the RP, and the surrounding circumstances that pointed towards an orchestrated attempt to dilute legitimate voting power and shield assets.

 

1. Admission of Unverified and Disputed Claims

 

A primary observation of the Technical Member regarding the collusive nature of the proceedings was the RP's hasty admission of massive, unverified claims without proper documentation.

 

Claims of Unverified Individuals from Haryana: The Technical Member highlighted that the RP admitted claims submitted by Mr. Anil Kumar and Mr. Sunil Jain on behalf of 960 and 300 individuals, respectively, despite the complete absence of supporting documentary material. The Technical Member concluded that admitting these claims without verification was a clear lapse in the RP's statutory obligations and pointed to an attempt to artificially inflate the creditor pool.

 

Admission of Disputed Corporate Claims: The Technical Member noted that the RP admitted claims of several disputed entities—including Veena Investments Pvt. Ltd., Direct Media Distribution Ventures Pvt. Ltd., World Crest Advisors LLP, Lemonade Capital Advisors LLP, and Corpcall Capital Advisors LLP, without adequate scrutiny of the underlying documentation necessary to establish a valid, enforceable, and legally subsisting liability of the PG.

 

2. Collusive Guarantees and Moratorium Violations

 

The Technical Member evaluated the nature of the guarantees that formed the basis of the claims of several disputed financial creditors.

 

Guarantees for Related Entities: The claims of Lemonade Capital Advisors LLP and Corpcall Capital Advisors LLP were based on deeds of guarantee executed by the PG to secure loans taken by Churu Enterprises LLP, which was another related entity of the promoter group.

 

Invocation During Interim Moratorium: It was observed that these guarantees were invoked during the period when the interim moratorium was actively in force. The Technical Member noted the objecting creditors' contentions that these guarantees were collusive in nature and designed to manufacture liabilities to influence the voting share in the Meeting of Creditors.

 

3. Undue Influence of Related Parties and Procedural Irregularities

 

The Technical Member expressed grave concerns about the overall integrity of the PIRP, observing that the process was heavily compromised.

 

Marred by Irregularities: The Technical Member observed that the approval process of the Repayment Plan was marred by serious procedural irregularities, a lack of due diligence, and the undue influence of related parties.

 

Vitiation of Fairness: This undue influence and the hasty conduct of the RP in admitting disputed claims "despite objections" were seen as factors that undermined the fairness, transparency, and integrity of the insolvency proceedings.

 

4. Inadequate Asset Tracing and Net Worth Discrepancies

 

The Technical Member pointed out a stark contrast between the PG's financial disclosures and the historical records, suggesting a deliberate attempt to conceal the PG's true financial position.

 

Massive Drop in Net Worth: The PG claimed a current net worth of only Rs. 31.79 crores. However, historical net worth certificates previously furnished to RBL Bank in 2017 and Canara Bank in 2018 recorded his net worth at approximately Rs. 45,888 crores and Rs. 40,562 crores, respectively.

 

Failure to Investigate: Despite this staggering discrepancy, the RP failed to appoint an independent forensic auditor or an asset-tracing agency to investigate the PG's assets and determine his real net worth. The Technical Member viewed this failure to investigate as a material omission that supported the allegations of collusive conduct and inadequate asset tracing.

 

5. The Lutyens' Delhi Property Valuation Discrepancy

 

One of the most striking pieces of evidence of collusive conduct and inadequate asset tracing highlighted by the Technical Member was the valuation and subsequent sale of a key asset.

 

Disclosed Value vs. Actual Sale Price: In the Statement of Affairs dated September 16, 2024, the PG disclosed total assets of only Rs. 31,77,39,371, which included a residential property in Lutyens' Delhi valued at Rs. 25 crores (mortgaged to STCI Finance Limited).

 

Fifty-Fold Valuation Gap: This same Lutyens' Delhi property was subsequently reported to be sold for approximately Rs. 1,260 crores – nearly fifty times its disclosed value. The Technical Member observed that this massive discrepancy prima facie demonstrated the necessity of a proper investigation into the PG's assets and strongly suggested circumstances of collusive conduct and systematic undervaluation of assets to the detriment of independent creditors.

 

6. Purposive Interpretation of "Associate" to Prevent Mischief

 

To address the collusive voting blocks within the Meeting of Creditors, the Technical Member advocated for a broader, purposive interpretation of the statutory framework.

 

Construing Section 79(2)(g): The Technical Member framed the issue of whether the definition of an "associate" under Section 79(2)(g) of the IBC should be purposively construed to include any company in which an associate exercises control or holds a majority stake, either independently or together with the debtor.

 

Preventing Statutory Mischief: The Technical Member argued that such a purposive construction was necessary to prevent the "mischief" the provision was intended to address—namely, related parties and associates acting in concert with the debtor to control the voting process and push through a collusive repayment plan.

 

7. Summary of Technical Member's Key Observations

 

Area of Concern	Specific Observation / Finding
Unverified Claims	Admitted claims of 1,260 individuals from Haryana without any supporting documentary evidence, constituting a statutory lapse.
Related-Party Influence	The PIRP was conducted in a hurried, opaque manner, marred by serious procedural irregularities and undue influence of related parties.
Collusive Guarantees	Guarantees in favour of Lemonade Capital and Corpcall Capital were linked to a group entity (Churu Enterprises) and invoked during the interim moratorium.
Asset Undervaluation	A Lutyens' Delhi property disclosed at Rs. 25 crores was sold for Rs.1,260 crores, indicating a fifty-fold discrepancy and suggesting collusive asset shielding.
Net Worth Discrepancy	A drop in net worth from over Rs. 40,000 crores to Rs. 31.79 crores was accepted by the RP without appointing a forensic auditor or asset-tracing agency.
Statutory Interpretation	Section 79(2)(g) must be purposively construed to prevent associates from participating in the voting process and manipulating the outcome.

 

8. Conclusion

 

The Technical Member’s observations paint a detailed picture of a process that was prima facie collusive and structurally flawed. By highlighting the hasty admission of unverified claims, the invocation of guarantees during the moratorium, the massive fifty-fold discrepancy in the valuation of the Lutyens' Delhi property, and the un-investigated drop in the PG's net worth, the Technical Member concluded that the PIRP lacked the necessary due diligence, fairness, and integrity. These findings led the Technical Member to accept the objecting creditors' assertions and reject the repayment plan, resulting in a formal split of opinion with the Judicial Member. This unambiguously underlines how the lifting of corporate veil is still a valid proposition.

 

Let us see what the 5 Member bench of NCLT concludes.

Dr Subhash Chandra – Need for Forensic Audit

In my previous article, I discussed the principles of “Substance over Form” and “Form over Substance”.

 

In this article, I discuss the specific findings of the Technical Member regarding the substance of the financial arrangement in Dr. Subhash Chandra's case apparently to evade legal obligation of honouring personal guarantee for repayment of a loan of Rs.22,000 crore.

 

Introduction

 

In the insolvency resolution proceedings of Dr. Subhash Chandra, the Learned Member (Technical), Ms. Reena Sinha Puri, adopted a highly critical, substantive, and purposive approach to analysing the financial arrangements and the conduct of the Resolution Professional (RP). Unlike the majority, who favoured a literal legal interpretation, the Technical Member went deep into the substance of the financial arrangements, the conduct of the RP, and the commercial reality of the transactions. The Technical Member's findings focused on several key areas where the form of the transactions was used to obscure their true substance, potentially compromising the integrity of the Personal Insolvency Resolution Process (PIRP).

 

1. Admission of Unverified and Questionable Claims

 

The Technical Member raised serious concerns regarding the RP's conduct in admitting massive claims without proper verification of documentation and the enforceability of the Personal Guarantor's (PG) liability.

 

Claims of Corporate Entities: The Technical Member scrutinized the admission of claims from entities such as Veena Investments Pvt Ltd, Direct Media Distribution Ventures Pvt Ltd, World Crest Advisors LLP, Lemonade Capital Advisors LLP, and Corpcall Capital Advisors LLP.

 

The Churu Enterprises Connection: Specifically, the claims submitted by Lemonade Capital Advisors LLP and Corpcall Capital Advisors LLP were founded upon deeds of guarantee allegedly executed by the PG in connection with financial facilities availed by another group entity, namely Churu Enterprises LLP. The Technical Member highlighted that these claims represented inflated debt in favour of related parties, admitted by the RP merely on assertions without adequate scrutiny or supporting documentation.

 

Unverified Individual Claims: The Technical Member strongly objected to the admission of claims filed by Mr. Anil Kumar and Mr. Sunil Jain on behalf of 960 and 300 unverified individuals from Haryana. These claims were admitted despite the complete absence of supporting documentary material, which the Technical Member identified as a clear lapse in the RP's statutory obligation to undertake appropriate verification.

 

2. Purposive Construction of "Associate" and Related Parties

 

A central finding of the Technical Member was that the corporate structure was being used as a façade to bypass statutory voting restrictions.

 

Purposive Interpretation of Section 79(2)(g): The Technical Member framed a specific issue on whether Section 79(2)(g), which defines an "associate" of the debtor, should be purposively construed. She argued that the definition must be interpreted to mean any company in which an associate exercises control or holds a majority stake, either independently or together with the debtor. This was essential to prevent the mischief of routing transactions through corporate entities to evade statutory consequences.

 

Exclusion from the Meeting of Creditors: The Technical Member found that the RP failed to exclude these associate/related parties from the Meeting of Creditors, thereby allowing their participation in the voting process in violation of Section 109(4)(b) of the IBC. She observed that even though the PG claimed these entities were unrelated, they were effectively controlled directly or indirectly by individuals related to the PG.

 

3. Omission and Misrepresentation of Assets

 

The Technical Member identified significant irregularities in the disclosure of the PG's assets, indicating that the RP failed to conduct proper due diligence under Section 79(14) of the IBC.

 

Omission of Investments: In paragraphs 117 and 118 of her order dated 03.09.2025, the Technical Member specifically found that an investment in "Subhash Chandra & Sons" under current assets was completely omitted and not included in the repayment plan.

 

Excluded Assets: The Technical Member also raised objections regarding the value of personal ornaments and other assets claimed as "excluded assets," which allegedly exceeded the statutory limits prescribed under the applicable Rules.

 

4. Discrepancy in Net Worth and Lack of Investigation

 

The Technical Member came down heavily on the RP's failure to investigate the massive divergence in the PG's historical and declared net worth.

 

Historical vs. Present Net Worth: Historical net worth certificates furnished to RBL Bank (2017) and Canara Bank (2018) recorded the PG's net worth at approximately ₹45,888 crores and ₹40,562 crores respectively. In stark contrast, the PG claimed a current net worth of only ₹31.79 crores.

 

Failure to Appoint Forensic Auditor: The Technical Member found that the RP accepted the PG's unsubstantiated claim of ₹31.79 crores without substantial scrutiny. Despite repeated requests and objections raised by several creditors, the RP failed to appoint an independent forensic auditor or asset-tracing agency to conduct a comprehensive investigation into the assets, transactions, and actual financial position of the PG.

 

5. Speculative and Legally Questionable Payment Proposals

 

The Technical Member scrutinized the financial viability and legality of the repayment plan itself.

 

Unrelated Entities and Speculative Recovery: The PG's plan proposed to facilitate the payment of ₹1,494 crores through entities that he otherwise claimed were unrelated to him. The Technical Member found this assurance to be legally questionable.

 

Speculative Recovery: Furthermore, the recovery under this proposal was "indicative" and entirely dependent upon the future sale price of shares, rendering the recovery highly speculative and uncertain.

 

6. Legal Principles on Substance over Form and Piercing the Corporate Veil

 

The Technical Member's approach aligns closely with established principles of Indian jurisprudence regarding the primacy of substance over form and the doctrine of piercing the corporate veil.

 

Lifting the Corporate Veil: In State of U.P. v. Renusagar Power Co., the Supreme Court held that the frontiers of lifting the corporate veil are unlimited and ever-expanding. Similarly, in Balwant Rai Saluja v. Air India Ltd., the Court held that courts are empowered to disregard the separate legal personality of a company to remedy a wrong done by the persons actually in control.

 

Preventing Evasion of Legal Obligations: In State of Rajasthan v. Gotan Lime Stone Khanij Udyog Private Limited, the Supreme Court recognized that the corporate veil may be lifted where the corporate entity is used as an attempt to evade legal obligations or welfare legislation.

 

Preventing Fraud and Sham Devices: In Union of India v. ABN Amro Bank, the Court reiterated that authorities can always lift the veil to examine whether parties have entered into any fraudulent, sham, or circuitous device to overcome statutory provisions. In Ajay Surendra Patel v. Dy. CIT, the Gujarat High Court noted that if a complex web is created to defraud or shield the real operator behind a corporate veil, courts must ignore the corporate status and strike at the real beneficiary.

 

The Technical Member's findings in the Dr. Subhash Chandra case represent a direct application of these principles, arguing that the tribunal must look through the corporate structures of Lemonade, Corpcall, and other entities to identify the real controlling mind (the PG and his associates) and prevent the evasion of statutory voting restrictions under the IBC.

 

Conclusion

 

In conclusion, the Technical Member's specific findings regarding the substance of the financial arrangement in Dr. Subhash Chandra's case were:

 

ü The RP admitted massive, potentially inflated claims of related corporate entities (such as Lemonade and Corpcall, linked to Churu Enterprises LLP) and unverified individuals without proper verification or supporting documentation.

 

ü  Section 79(2)(g) must be purposively construed to prevent the PG from using corporate structures to bypass the statutory definition of "associate" and participate in the voting process.

 

ü The PG's repayment plan omitted key assets (such as the investment in Subhash Chandra & Sons) and claimed excluded assets beyond statutory limits.

 

ü The RP failed to investigate the massive drop in the PG's net worth (from over ₹40,000 crores to ₹31.79 crores) by refusing to appoint an independent forensic auditor.

 

ü The proposal to pay ₹1,494 crores through allegedly unrelated entities was legally questionable and highly speculative.

 

To sum up:

 

·        Dr Subhash Chandra, the Personal Guarantor to the massive loan of Rs.22,000 crore should have been subjected to detailed and deep forensic audit for his various acts of omission and commission.

 

·        If the 5 Member NCLT Bench is going to be guided by literal interpretation, which in financial and tax evasion matters is not only undeserving but benefits the perpetrators, then it is better not to constitute the Bench in the first place itself.

 

·        This case represents a classic example of how one can hoodwink the system and get away with it.