Reply to the Notice of Nishikant Dubey for Alleged Defamation
[BY SPEED POST/ COURIER/EMAIL)
26 September 2026
To,
Amit
V. Awasthy, Advocate
(for
Nishikant Dubey)
43,
Hemkunt Colony, Greater Kailash-I,
New
Delhi- 110048
(email
amitvawasth@gmail.com)
FACTS OF THE CASE
1. 1. I
wrote an opinion piece titled ‘India’s 7.8% GDP
Growth: Is the Government’s Data Really What it Seems?’ which was published in
the Quint on 2 September. I posted it on X on the same day (2.29 PM) with my
comment ‘I explain analytical base of my conclusion that GDP growth in Q1 in
2026-27 in current price is 2.6% and in real terms close to 0. There are still
messier distortions in sectoral performance with manufacturing and consumption
witnessing negative growth’. This post received over 8 lakh views in the next
few days.
2. 2. Nishikant Dubey, on 2/3
September 2026, posted on X to ridicule and denigrate my above X post: “Baura
gaye hain, Vitt Sachive ke pad se raton rat isi agyanta ke karan hataye gaye
the, us sadme se ubar nahin paye” (Has gone mad; was removed from the post of
finance secretary in a night because of his ignorance; he has not been able to
come out of that shock). He attached a letter dated 3 March 2018 written by himself
(Nishikant Dubey) to Prime Minister Narendra Modi. In the letter, Nishikant Dubey
described my economic policy approach required urgent reconsideration in the
larger interest of India’s growth and development. He wrote to Prime Minister: “I
wish to draw your kind attention to certain serious concerns regarding the
economic policy approach being advocated by the Secretary, Department of
Economic Affairs, Ministry of Finance, Shri Subhash Chandra Garg, which, in my
considered view, requires urgent review in the larger interest of the country’s
growth and development”. Nishikant Dubey took particular umbrage at what he
described as an excessively restrictive approach to the fiscal deficit. He
wrote in the same letter to PM: “Fiscal consolidation should therefore remain a
means towards achieving sustainable prosperity and economic stability, and
should not become an end in itself”. Nishikant Dubey, in that letter, advocated
greater flexibility under the Fiscal Responsibility and Budget Management Act,
2003 arguing that extraordinary infrastructure requirements, subdued private
investment, global uncertainty and strategic priorities could at times require
temporary flexibility in the fiscal deficit path. Nishikant Dubey wrote “The
objective should not merely be to achieve a particular fiscal-deficit
percentage on paper, but to determine whether Government expenditure is
productive, growth generating and capable of creating long-term national assets”.
Linking his concerns to the government’s infrastructure plans, citing projects
and programmes including industrial corridors, Bharatmala, Sagarmala, railway
investment, UDAN, airports, highways, ports and inland waterways, Nishikant Dubey
said “These programmes are not merely expenditure. They constitute productive
capital formation which will reduce logistics costs, improve connectivity,
attract industries, generate investment and increase India’s productive
capacity for decades”. Arguing that these projects required substantial public
capital expenditure and that government investment could help crowd in private
investment, Nishikant Dubey wrote “It is therefore important that the Ministry
of Finance does not allow an excessively restrictive fiscal approach to slow
down the implementation of your Government’s development agenda”. Styling that
his concerns were based on his interactions with me, while I served on
the post of Secretary Economic Affairs, Nishikant Dubey wrote finally: “From my
interactions with the Economic Affairs Secretary, I have developed a serious
apprehension that his approach is not sufficiently aligned with the scale, urgency,
and ambition of the economic transformation envisioned by you and our
Government”. Finally Nishikant Dubey urged Prime Minister Modi to personally
review my positions on fiscal deficit policy, the FRBM framework, liquidity and
the cost of capital, private investment, foreign and domestic capital formation
and financing for the government’s infrastructure programme.
3. 3. It is noteworthy that
this letter was written to the Prime Minister on 3 March 2018 after Arun
Jaitley, the Finance Minister had presented the Budget 2018-19 on 1 February
2018, the Standing Committee attached to the Ministry of Finance had reviewed
the budget proposals relating to the Ministry of Finance and a Sub-Committee
headed by Nishikant Dubey had examined me on the subject of fiscal deficit in
the month of February. It is noteworthy that the economic policy decisions were
and are finally taken at the level of Finance Minister in the Ministry of
Finance which in 2018 was headed by one of the most experienced and
knowledgeable person of a high stature Mr. Arun Jaitley. This letter of Nishikant
Dubey dated 3 March 2018 did not come to my notice while I was serving in the
Government. Neither was my performance reviewed in the matter by the Prime
Minister or the Finance Minister or the Principal Secretary to the Prime
Minister with reference to this letter of Nishikant Dubey. I saw this letter dated
3 March 2018 of Nishikant Dubey for the first time on 3 September 2026 when
Nishikant Dubey chose to post it along with his post on X. I did not react to or
comment on Nishikant Dubey’s post on X or the letter of 3 March 2018, posted by
him on X.
4. 4. I wrote another opinion
piece in Quint, published on 7 September, titled ‘Subhash Garg Writes: Centre’s
FAQs on GDP Revision Lack Crucial Supporting Data’ and posted it on X (1.52 PM)
on the same day with the comment: ‘Dramatic use of same 25-26Q1 data on old
series turned 26-27Q1 real GDP growth from 7.8% to zero. It made India’s GDP,
growth and 12.7 trillion GDP loss in 2024-25 a subject of common enquiry. In
this piece, I debunk govt’s explanation and ask for truth’. This post received
over 200 thousand views in a couple of days. I did not come across any post
from Nishikant Dubey on this X post of mine.
5. 5. Shalini Kapoor Tiwari and
Deepak Tiwari requested me to do a podcast on GDP numbers and related issues on
3 September 2026 and wanted to invite me to record it at their studio in Noida.
I suggested 22/23 September for recording the podcast. They wanted
it sooner. Finally, it was agreed that the podcast would be recorded at my home
office on 12 September. In this podcast, Shalini Tiwari brought up the subject
of Nishikant Dubey’s post on X and the letter of 3 March 2018. In response to
her pointed questions, I essentially said the following:
a.
I don’t think the Prime
Minister or the Government gave any consideration to the letter of 3 March 2018
of Nishikant Dubey. It was not shared with me. In my understanding the
government ignored it.
b.
Nishikant Dubey came to
see me (or spoke to me) to use my offices to pressurise the Chairman, Life
Insurance Corporation of India (I was a member on the Board of the LIC from
July 2017 to early 2019) in some matter connected with appointment or transfer
of some officer(s) or connected with procurement. As the LIC’s administrative
department was the Department of Financial Services (DFS) in the Ministry of
Finance, which at the time was headed by Rajiv Kumar, a Jharkhand Cadre officer
who knew Nishikant Dubey (MP from Jharkhand) quite well, I asked Nishikant
Dubey to speak to Rajiv Kumar. As Nishikant Dubey insisted on using my offices
only in the matter, I declined Nishikant Dubey’s demand and pressure to
intervene with the LIC Chairman. This certainly upsent Nishikant Dubey.
c.
A few days later, in the
meeting of Standing Committee of Parliament attached to the Ministry of
Finance, of which Nishikant Dubey was a member, when asked about the
non-provision of budget for the biggest scheme of Ayushman Bharat announced in
the Budget 2018-19, I honestly responded that the Scheme was finalised somewhat
late in the day not leaving enough time for creating a separate budget head
which led to the situation that no specific provision for Ayushman Bharat
scheme was made in the Budget 2018-19. I also informed the Parliamentary
Standing Committee that the old insurance scheme Rashtriya Swasthya Bhima
Yojana (RSBY), which was to be substituted by Ayushman Bharat, had budget
provision which would be used in the first few months and that the government
would create specific budget head for Ayushman Bharat scheme through the
Supplementary grants in the Monsoon session of the Parliament.
d.
I thought that the
response to the Standing Committee was both truthful and took complete care of
the operationalisation of the Ayushman Bharat scheme, which sufficiently
addressed the Committee’s concerns, if any. I got the similar impression from
the Committee’s reaction. However, as soon as I reached my office, there was a
call from the Principal Secretary to Prime Minister. The Principal Secretary,
sounding somewhat upset, asked me why did I inform the Standing Committee that
the Government delayed making decision about the Ayushman Bharat Scheme. I
explained him what I actually said, the context, the reasons and the
satisfaction of the Committee. Principal Secretary was satisfied and did not
pursue the matter further. Later, I checked with the Principal Secretary about who
informed him mischievously about what transpired in the meeting. He named
Nishikant Dubey.
e.
It is noteworthy that the
meeting of Standing Committee took place after I had refused Nishikant Dubey’s
pressure/demand to get some officer transferred in the LIC. Nishikant Dubey
chose to go immediately after the Parliamentary Standing Committee meeting to
mischievously and selectively inform about the deliberations in the Standing
Committee to spoil the mind of the senior most officer in the Prime Minister
Office (PMO) about me. Later he followed this up with a letter to the Prime
Minister in a bid to turn the Prime Minister against me.
f.
I, in the podcast,
therefore, called out Nishikant Dubey by describing the entire sequence of
events in the matter and termed Nishikant Duby a blackmailer type of person. I
was searching in my mind for the word ‘bully’ at that time. In my judgement,
Nishikant Dubey’s actions and antics post my refusal to do his bidding was
clearly of bullying and blackmailing nature.
6. 6. Shalini Kapoor Tiwari
released her podcast on 15 September, which contains the sequence relating to
Nishikant Dubey. I put it on my X account on 17 September with the comment
‘Watch this podcast with Shalini. I respond to everyone- from Nishikant Dube to
CEA to Secretary MOSPI- about the reality of missing 12.7 lakh crore of GDP.
There is a lot more about my innings with Modi Government’.
7. 7. Nishikant Dubey released
a flurry of posts on X and other social media channels from 20 September
onwards. Nishikant Dubey also spoke to many news agencies and channels. I
extract a few of these posts and his comments:
a.
In his post on 21
September on X, Nishikant Dubey wrote: “Ye jo Subhash Garg purva vitt Sachive
ki badmijaji hai, use maine theek karne ka faisala kiya hai. Maine uske upar
aapradhik manhaani kiya hai. Kyonki usne apne daftar mein mere saath mulakat ka
jikr kiya hai. Subhash tumhari jaankari ke liye main san 2009 mein Sansad bana,
tabse lekar aajtak main Bharat sarkar ke daftar mein nahi gaya hoon, kyonki
sachiv bharat sarkar protocol mein sansad se neeche hai. Dusra, 2009 se lekar
aajtak maine kabhi bhi transfer posting ki koi chitthi nahi likhi hai. Tumhara
kya koi mitra bhi meri koi chitthi ya daftar ki kisi meeting ke sambandh mein
suchna de denge to main tumhe mard ki aulad manunga. Desh ki arthvyashtha ko
dubone wale Subhash ka rasta jail hai”.
b.
In his interview to ANI
on 21 September, Nishikant Dubey said: “He is a petty man. He says that I went
to his office in 2018. I have challenged him to prove whether I ever visited
any Secretary’s office in Delhi or Ranchi. I also said that I never write letters
for transfer/posting. Show me one such letter. The time he is referring to, was
the period when I was the Direct and Indirect Tax Chairman of Public Accounts
Committee. Chairman has the right to summon any Secretary or Officer. I have
filed a criminal defamation case against him. He is lying. He will have to
publicly apologise. If he doesn’t apologise, he will go to jail”.
c.
In an interview to IANS
on 21 September 2026, Nishikant Dubey said: “The former Finance Secretary is
speaking beyond his limits. He said in an interview that I went to his office
and spoke about some transfer. I said, leave your own matter aside. Today, whoever
your current disciples are, bring them forward…”
d.
In another interview to
ANI HindiNews, Nishikant Dubey said on 21 September: “Maine aapradhik manhaani
ka case kiya hai. Saari jhoot nikal jayegi. Agar khuleaam maafi nahi mangega to
ye jail jayega”.
e.
On 22 September Nishikant
Dubey posted on X three pages of his defamation notice, along with following
comment: “Subhash Garg @Subhashgarg1960 saat din mein maafi mango, nahi to
salankho tak le jane ki koshish karunga. Main khud PAC mein Vitt ke sub
committee ka adhyaksh tha, roj apne saamne hajir karata tha, badjubani nahin
chalegi. Maine aaj tak vitt mantralaya ka karyalaya nahin dekha hai. Main apni
sarkar mein bhi kabhi na Arun Jaitley ji se mila na Nirmala Sitaraman ji se
vitt mantralaya mein mila, tum kya ho?”
f.
There are many more
interviews, posts and comments containing almost similar comments and threats.
8. 8. The Legal Notice-
Criminal Defamation under Section 356 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
Demand for immediate withdrawal, retraction, takedown and unconditional public
apology for the false, malicious and defamatory imputations made against Dr.
Nishikant Dubey, Member of Parliament (Lok Sabha) dated 21.09.2026- issued by
Amit V Awasthi, Advocate has been delivered to me on 23 September 2026.
NOTICE
FOR ALLEGED DEFAMATION
9. 9. In the notice cited
above, it has been alleged that the Notice is ‘in respect of the false,
fabricated and malicious imputations made’ by me against his ‘client in a
podcast/interview with Ms. Shalini Kapoor Tiwari on 17.09.2026’. The Notice
further states that ‘Notably, in the Podcast’ I ‘branded an elected Member of
Parliament’ a “blackmailing kind of person” and “told that the public
that he came to” my “office to have” me “lean on the Chairman of
the Life Insurance Corporation of India (LIC) to get his “work” done”.
1010. The
Notice asserts that “Both statements are false” and that I “have no material to
support them--” and that my narration did not “even support the epithet” which I
“chose to attach to it”. It further avers that his “client will not allow his
public standing to be damaged by a baseless slur” and that I am “called upon to
answer for it”.
1111. The
Notice in Part B reproduces the conversation I had with Ms. Shalini Kapoor
Tiwari in the Podcast/ interview (video) published and circulated on YouTube,
Facebook and other digital platforms. The notice also has an English version of
the reproduced conversation in Hindi.
1212. The
Part C of the Notice- headlined ‘The Imputations’ dwells on two imputations,
which, in the opinion of the Advocate Amit Awasthy are each independently
defamatory.
The
first imputation is that Nishikant Dubey was a “blackmailing” person i.e. as
Advocate Awasthy puts it ‘one who resorts to blackmail, coercion and improper
pressure to get his way’ and:
The
second imputation is that Nishikant Dubey was stated by me to have come to my
office and sought to use me as a member of LIC’s board, as a conduit to have
the Chairman LIC to do “work” for Nishikant Dubey and “insisted on doing so
through” even after I told him “to approach concerned officer” (i.e. Rajiv
Kumar, Secretary DFS who was administrative head of LIC).
1313. The
Notice alleges that these ‘imputations’ are not expressions of opinion or fair
criticism. The Notice says these “are specific allegations of fact, said to be
within” my “personal knowledge and the anecdote” offered “as the factual
foundation for the epithet”.
1414. Part
D the Notice states that Nishikant Dubey “categorically denies” my
“allegations”. It further says that Nishikant Dubey “never approached” me, in
my “office or anywhere else, to seek any favour from the Chairman of LIC or
from anyone else and has never sought to use” my “office, position or influence
in any personal, extraneous or preferential purpose.” It further concludes that
“The narration is a fabrication from beginning to end”.
1515. The
Notice further states that Nishikant Dubey “publicly denied my allegation
immediately after the Podcast” by way of a post on X, extracted at 7 a above.
The notice at para 10 and 11 further states that my account destroys itself. I
am not reproducing this part as this has nothing to do with the alleged
defamation. The Notice in para 12 to 15 cites the Section 356 and its
explanation and exceptions and how, in the opinion of Advocate Awasthy, does
not absolve me of the alleged defamation.
1616. The Part F of the
Notice, from para 16 to 19, Advocate Awasthy on behalf of his client Nishikant
Dubey demands that I take certain actions including ‘unconditionally and
unequivocally withdraw and retract the imputation’ especially the imputation
that Nishikant Dubey is a “blackmailing kind of person” and offer an
unconditional, unqualified apology ‘in Hindi and English, in a form approved
by’ Nishikant Dubey. There are numerous other demands as well.
1717. Taking the contents of
the Notice by Advocate Amit V Awasthy and various
statements/assertions/allegations made by Nishikant Dubey on X and other social
media extracted above, I understand, that two imputations alleged to be of
defamatory nature have been attributed to me with respect to Nishikant Dubey in
the Notice.
First, that Nishikant Dubey never
visited my office and that the position of a Member of Parliament is higher in
protocol to that of Secretary to the Government of India and therefore by
speaking about his visiting my office I have allegedly defamed Nishikant Dubey.
Second, by alleging that Nishikant
Dubey pressurised me to speak to Chairman LIC to do a transfer which Nishikant
Dubey wanted done (which I did not do), I described Nishikant Dubey as a person
of blackmailing type.
NO DEFAMATION WAS DONE OR MADE OUT
1818. Nishikant Dubey in his
post on X alleged that I defamed him by stating in the podcast that he visited
me in my office. The said post has also been attached to the Notice. The
relevant portion is extracted below:
“Kyonki
usne apne daftar mein mere saath mulakat ka jikr kiya hai. Subhash tumhari
jaankari ke liye main san 2009 mein Sansad bana tabse lekar aajtak main bharat
sarkar ke daftar mein nahi gaya hoon, kyonki sachiv bharat sarkar protocol mein
sansad se neeche hai.”
1919. The Notice, however,
does not mention my narration regarding Nishikant Dubey visiting my office or
speaking to me despite, as stated by Nishikant Dubey, that the Member of
Parliament is higher in status than a Secretary to the Government and therefore
my stating that Nishikant Dubey visited my office was in itself a defamatory
statement.
2020. It is very normal for
the public representatives, including the members of Parliament to visit
government officials, both in the state and at the centre. There is no protocol
issue in the matter. Both members of Parliament and secretaries (and other officials)
are public servants. Any statement of the effect that Nishikant Dubey, a member
of Parliament, visited or spoke to me is by no stretch of imagination a
defamatory statement. It did not harm the reputation of Nishikant Dubey in any
manner.
2121. As this matter has not
been included in the Notice as defamatory, I will not deal with this anymore.
2222. The main imputation
which is alleged to be defamatory is that I categorised Nishikant Dubey as a
person of blackmailing type. Let me describe the sequence of entire episode and
why I believe that this was a truthful characterisation and not a defamatory
statement.
2323. The entire sequence of
events started with Nishikant Dubey posting on X on 2/3 September (extracted at
para 2) ‘Baura gaye hain, Vitt Sachive ke pad
se raton rat isi agyanta ke karan hataye gaye the, us sadme se ubar nahin paye’.
In English, this translates to Subhash Garg ‘has gone mad; was removed from the
post of finance secretary in a night because of his ignorance; he has not been
able to come out of that shock’.
2424. The
Notice conveniently makes no mention of this post by Nishikant Dubey.
2525. In
this post, Nishikant characterises me as ‘mad’ and imputes that I was ‘removed
from the post of finance secretary in a night’ because of my ‘agyanta
(ignorance, foolishness, lack of knowledge)’ and that I have ‘not been able to
come out of that shock’. There are four big defamatory, false and malicious statements
in that single sentence. Let me put the record straight.
2626. First,
I had not gone mad by writing the GDP opinion piece in the Quint on 2 September
2026. In fact, that piece, raised a very significant question of national
importance by drawing attention to the missing/disappearing Rs. 6 lakh crore
GDP at current prices in the first quarter of 2025-26 and of Rs. 12.70 lakh
crore in financial year 2024-25. The post I made on X, enclosing my Quint paper,
has attracted enormous national, governmental and public attention to the whole
matter of GDP. The missing/disappearing GDP became a national concern and was
and is still continues to be debated extensively on television, social media
and in colleges, cafés and drawing rooms all across the country. For writing this
nationally important post, Nishikant Dubey called me mad. How much Nishikant
Dubey understands the matters of GDP is not for me to comment but he thought it
his expertise and prerogative to post on X to call me “baura gaye hain”, i.e. I
have gone mad. This characterisation of me by Nishikant Dubey as mad was highly
defamatory, false and provocative.
2727. Second,
Nishikant Dubey stated that I was removed from the post of finance secretary
‘agyanta ke karan’ (because of lack of knowledge), terming me an ‘Agyani’ or an
‘ignorant’ person. This also is clearly defamatory and false. I have written a
treatise on the Indian Dream of making India a $10 Trillion Economy. I have
reviewed the progress towards this Dream in my 2024 book “The $10 Trillion
Dream Dented: The State of Indian Economy and Policy Reforms under Modi 2.0
(2019-2024). Both these books are masterly commentary on Indian economy and the
state of policy reforms. I have also written two very well-read books on my
experiences of Indian administration and finance (We Also Make Policy in 2023
and No, Minister in 2025). I write every year an annual exhaustive commentary
on the Government of India budgets under the title- Subhash Chandra Garg’s
Commentary and Explanation on Budget--. These are national reference resources.
Such a person is pronounced ‘Agyani’ by Nishikant Dubey in his X post on 3
September. I have no comments on the ‘gyan’ of Nishikant Dubey in the matters
of national budgets, finance and economy, but his terming me ‘Agyani’ is plain
and simple defamatory, mischievous and false.
2828. Nishikant
Dubey further said in his X post that I was ‘removed’ (hataye gaye) from the
post of finance secretary post haste (‘raton rat’). I am sure Nishikant Dubey
has no idea of what led to my transfer from the Finance Ministry to the
Ministry of Power in July 2019. Yet, he carelessly and deliberately chose to
characterise my transfer as ‘removal’ ‘post haste’ to attack my reputation and
credibility. I have described the entire sequence and the circumstances, in
both my books- We Also Make Policy and No, Minister- that it was a consensual
transfer between the Government and Me after the new Minister Nirmala
Sitharaman had made it an issue that she was not prepared to work with me. The
government had offered me any post which I could choose. It was my decision,
taken completely voluntarily and without any rancour, to take voluntary
retirement from the government. The government did not want me to go. I was not
removed and not ‘raton rat’. Nishikant Dubey, completely ignorant of the entire
matter, chose to sound as if he knows it from horse’s mouth and that he was
instrumental in effecting it. By making this completely false statement, Nishikant
Dubey was besmirching my character and competence.
2929. The
final- completely wrong, malicious and defamatory statement which Nishikant
Dubey made- was to say that I have not been able to come out that shock ‘us
sadme se ubar nahin paye’ for being transferred ‘raton rat’ out of Ministry of
Finance. Nishikant Dubey must know that the post of Secretary, Ministry of
Power was and is an equal and as important post (in all respects- pay, status
and responsibility) as that of the Secretary, Department of Economic Affairs.
Many officers are transferred from one post of Secretary to another post of
Secretary. If someone is not happy about the transfer, he or she, goes and sees
the Principal Secretary to the Prime Minister or even meets the Prime Minister
to explain the matter. In my case, the Additional Principal Secretary to the
Prime Minister had discussed the entire matter with me a week before and
offered to post me anywhere I liked. It was my preference that I wanted to take
voluntary retirement. How could I suffer a ‘shock (sadma)’ when I was acting
entirely according to my own choice, preference and volition. It was more than
seven years before the Shalini Tiwari podcast episode that my transfer had taken
place. It was never a shock (sadma) for me. It is only for a person of
Nishikant Dubey’s eminence who has not still forgotten about the matter. Was it
a sadma (shock) to Nishikant Duby from which he has still not been able to come
out? This claim and characterisation by Nishikant Dubey is completely false,
fabricated and intended maliciously to attribute far-fetched wrong motives to
me for writing the GDP piece.
3030. Shalini
Kapoor Tiwari had carried a print out of this X post of Nishikant Dubey, which
had four clear false, fabricated, malicious and deliberately insulting
assertions. She pointed raised the matter, in the podcast, for my comments,
acceptance or denial. I had to respond. Not responding to the same would have
amounted to its acceptance by me- an acceptance of blatantly false, mischievous
and defamatory statements made by Nishikant Dubey! It was something which I
could have never done, especially as I knew him to be a bullying and
blackmailing type of person and this post was also of same nature.
3131. In
my response to Shalini Tiwari’s pointed questions about what Nishikant Dubey
said in his X comment, I recalled two actual cases which happened between
Nishikant Dubey and me in 2018. I first related the story of Nishikant Dubey
approaching me to pressurise the Chairman of LIC about a transfer or
procurement matter. I then related the story of Nishikant Dubey rushing to the
Prime Minister Office to poison the mind of Principal Secretary to Prime
Minister about me allegedly (in Nishikant Dubey’s opinion) bringing the
reputation of the Government in the matter of Ayushman Bharat budget provision
in 2018-19 budget. I also used the contents and reference of the letter of
March 2018 which Nishikant Dubey chose to attach to his X post.
3232. The
narrative I built in response to Shalini Tiwari’s pointed questions about
Nishikant Dubey terming me Agyani (ignorant), boran gaye hai (going mad), raton
rat transfer (post haste transfer) and ‘us sadme se nahi ubar paye’ (have not
been able to come out of that shock), is completely true and is supported fully
by the sequence of events and the actions of Nishikant Dubey.
3333. The
first part of the narrative related to Nishikant Dubey trying to use and
pressurise me to ask LIC chairman to make some transfer which Nishikant Dubey
wanted and had probably been refused by LIC chairman. I reaffirm that what I
said is one hundred percent true. Nishikant Dubey has tried to side-track the
fact of our conversation I recounted by stating that he never wrote any letter
to me. I did not say that Nishikant Dubey wrote a letter to me regarding the transfer
he wanted effected. I said and I reiterate that he spoke to me to use my good
offices to get that transfer done in the LIC. Nishikant Dubey has tried to go
hyperbolic by asking me to get any letter (s) which he wrote from my friends in
service to prove that he wrote which would convince him that I am a ‘mard ki
aulad’. I don’t have to prove that I am mard ki aulad or not. This kind of
rustic and rowdy language has been used by Nishikant Dubey only to sidetrack
the main point I made that he spoke to me about it.
3434. This
is not even a case of my word against his word. This incident of Nishikant
Dubey trying to pressurise me to speak to LIC chairman to get his wrong work (I
presumed that LIC chairman would have refused to do his bidding only if that
was not permissible within rules or desirable in the organisation’s interest)
took place in early February 2018 after the presentation of the Budget.
Nishikant Dubey, being a member of the Standing Committee attached to the
Ministry of Finance and chairperson of a Sub-Committee on Direct and Indirect
Tax Chairman of Public Accounts Committee (as he stated in his post on X cited
above), thought that he could easily pressurise me (misusing his position) to
get that work done. When I refused to do it, Nishikant Dubey began using his bullying
and blackmailing tactics against me.
3535. The
story I related in the Podcast about my evidence before the Standing Committee
attached to the Ministry of Finance relating to non-provision of specific
budget for the Ayushman Bharat scheme, announced in the Budget 2018-19, because
of delay in its finalisation and the Government being in a comfortable position
to roll out the Scheme by spending from the Rashtriya Swasthya Bima Yojana
(RSBY) scheme is completely factual. It is also a fact that Nishikant Dubey, to
poison the mind of Principal Secretary to Prime Minister, rushed immediately
after the meeting and told him that I lowered the prestige of the Government by
admitting that there was a delay in finalisation of the Ayushman Bharat scheme
as the reason for the non-provision of budget provision for that scheme in
specific head. It is interesting to note that while Nishikant Dubey has tried
to create the impression that he did not speak to me about any transfer in LIC,
he has not denied the fact of I relating the sequence of his having gone to the
Principal Secretary to Prime Minister and complaining about my allegedly
lowering the reputation of the Government. This meeting had taken place around
10th-15th of February 2018.
3636. A
very clear and pertinent question is why did Nishikant Dubey rush to the office
of Principal Secretary to the Prime Minister to complain about me. Very
clearly, he was smarting under my refusal to do his bidding for getting the
transfer done through Chairman LIC. Nishikant Dubey spotted an opportunity in
my honest and completely factual statement about the provisioning for Ayushman
Bharat and thought that by making the Principal Secretary take umbrage at my
alleged ineptitude/ indiscretion, he could bully or blackmail me. The fact that
he has not denied the narration proves that it was true.
3737. As
that attempt of Nishikant Dubey also failed to make any difference, he tried
another method.
3838. In
his X post, dated 22 September 2026 (extracted above), Nishikant Dube states
“Main khud PAC mein Vitt ke subcommittee ka adhyaksh tha, roj apne saamne hajir
karata tha, badjubani nahin chalegi”. I
have taken note of the words “roj apne saamne hajir karata tha’, meaning that
he used to call me every day in his presence being the ‘adhyaksh’ (President)
of the ‘Vitt kee subcommittee’ (Sub-Committee of Finance). This certainly is a
tall claim and symptomatic of a person of bullying and blackmailing nature.
Secretaries to the Government give evidence before the Parliamentary Committees
and Sub-Committees on behalf of the Government under oath. There is a
respectful and well laid out process for that. A notice is issued in advance
and the subjects of evidence laid out. The Parliamentary Committees/
Sub-Committees are taken very seriously by everyone in the government. Very
thorough preparations are made and on the day of evidence, the team of the
Ministry/Department led by the Secretary tenders the evidence. To trivialise
the Parliamentary Committees/ Sub-Committees by boasting that ‘roj apne saamne
hajir karata tha’ is not only a gross misuse of the Parliamentary process but
also a breach of the Parliamentary Privilege. The boast from Nishikant Dubey
that as the Chaiman of a Parliamentary Sub-Committee that he could call me or any
secretary to the government every day to be present before him is certainly a
misuse and breach of Parliamentary Privilege.
3939. This
boast of Nishikant Dubey is also connected with disturbance in his mind about
me for not doing his work of getting some officer of LIC transferred by
pressurising LIC chairman. I recall that the Sub-Committee headed by Nishikant
Dubey wanted me to give evidence about fiscal deficit. When a notice to that
effect was received in the month of February 2018, I sought to transfer the
notice to Secretary Revenue as the Sub-Committee on Taxation, which Nishikant
Dubey headed, was serviced by Secretary Revenue, and not by Secretary DEA,
which I headed. There was no prima facie reason for the Sub-Committee on
Taxation to even examine the subject of fiscal deficit. However, as the office
of Nishikant Dubey insisted that the Sub-Committee, headed by Nishikant Dubey,
wanted to examine the subject of fiscal deficit and take my evidence only, I
agreed to appear before the Sub-Committee headed by Nishikant Dubey. This was
clearly an attempt to use the channel of Parliamentary Sub-Committee to make me
realise his authority and by that, make me do Nishikant Dubey’s bidding. One
meeting of the Sub-Committee was held. I as the Secretary of DEA appeared
before the Sub-Committee headed by Nishikant Dubey. We supplied all the
relevant material and gave the evidence. I took the meeting as a normal
process. For me the matter was over when the meeting finished.
4040. This
unusual evidence engineered by Nishikant Dubey in late February 2018 in the
matter of Fiscal Deficit, now connects completely to the letter dated 3 March
2018 which Nishikant Dubey wrote to Prime Minister complaining about my alleged
excessive insistence on maintaining fiscal deficit discipline. This letter was
made from the material the DEA supplied for the meeting of the Sub-Committee
headed by Nishikant Dubey and the evidence I tendered outlying the approach
towards fiscal deficit. He used certain parts of this content and evidence in
his letter to poison the mind of Prime Minister. In that attempt also,
Nishikant Dubey did not succeed as the Prime Minister did not act on that
letter for at least 16 months (from March 2018 to July 2019). My transfer which
Nishikant Dubey perhaps hoped to effect in March 2018 did not take place ‘raton
rat’ but took 16 months and that too for reasons entirely unconnected to
Nishikant Dubey’s efforts through the 3 March 2018 letter.
4141. Nishikant
Dubey, out of his frustration or to show me my place, after I refused to do his
bidding about getting a transfer in LIC done, used three big attempts to pressurise,
bully and blackmail me. First, he tried to poison the mind of Principal
Secretary Prime Minister by giving a completely dishonest colour to my evidence
about budget provisioning for Ayushman Bharat in Budget 2018-19. Second, he
forced me to make appearance before his Sub-Committee which was serviced by a
different department and on a subject like fiscal deficit, which was not in his
Committee’s domain. Third, he used the material the DEA supplied relating to
fiscal deficit and the evidence I tendered by writing a letter to the Prime
Minister to nudge him to give his mind or transfer me out of the Ministry of
Finance.
4242. The
entire sequence of events and the facts of the case confirm the narration which
I told in the Shalini Tiwari podcast in response to wholly false, distasteful
and malicious post of Nishikant Dubey on 3 September. As the entire sequence is
completely true and the sequence of events completely confirm and corroborate
my narration, there is no doubt in my mind that Nishikant Dubey is a person of
bullying and blackmailing nature.
CONTINUING
BULLYING AND DEFAMATION
4343. In his various posts and interviews, Nishikant
Dubey has adopted a highly threatening and demeaning attitude intended to
bully, browbeat and defame me. Nishikant Dubey has behaved as if he owns or
controls the Parliamentary and Judicial systems.
4444. In
his 21 September post on X, Nishikant Dubey wrote: Ye jo Subhash Garg purva
vitt Sachive ki badmijaji hai, use maine theek karne ka faisala kiya hai (I
have decided to set bad mindedness of Subhash Garg, former finance secretary). In
another post, Nishikant Dubey has, asserting that he had filed a criminal
defamation case against me, he accuses me of “lying” and commands that I “will
have to publicly apologise”. Then Nishikant Dubey threatens that if I don’t
“apologise” I “will go to jail”. Yet again, he states that “Saat din mein maafi
mango nahi to salankho tak le jane ki koshish karunga” (Either apologise within
seven days or I would be sent behind bars). This is clearly the language of a
bully. Nishikant Dubey has every right to file a defamation case. But, is
Nishikant Dubey the police, prosecutor or the Judge to be so cocksure that I would
go to jail and spend my time behind the bars. Only a bully, raises and makes such
threats.
4545. Nishikant
Dubey credits me with destroying the economy of the country; “Desh ki
arthvyashtha ko dubone wale Subhash” (Subhash who has destroyed the economy of
country), he asserts, again, becoming an adjudicator that I my fate is sealed
to go to jail- “ka rasta jail hai”. Does Nishikant Dubey believe that India’s
economy has been destroyed? He might. But how does he accuse me of doing it
when I had left the government seven years back? Is Nishikant Dubey talking and
behaving coherently? This statement is false and totally defamatory.
4646. Numerous times between
21 and 23 September, Nishikant Dubey asserted that I would go to jail. This is
bullying, threatening and defamatory, all intended to force me to withdraw the
truthful comments I made regarding Nishikant Dubey making unsuccessful attempts
to use me to get his job done in the LIC.
4747. Let me state very
clearly, as I have explained above, Nishikant Dubey’s bullying and blackmailing
tactics did not succeed in 2018. I did not do Nishikant Dubey’s bidding. He
tried to misuse the offices of Principal Secretary to Prime Minister, his own
position as a Chairman of Taxation Sub-Committee and the offices of the Prime
Minister to harm and pressurise me. All these efforts of Nishikant Dubey failed
in February-March 2018. Realising that he would not be able to get his bullying
way with me, he stopped bothering me after March 2018. I see similar fate to
the bullying, threatening and defaming ways and methods of Nishikant Dubey even
now.
CONSCIOUS OF RISK AND HARM
4848. I have stated the fact base of the entire
matter in the paras above. I am, however, deeply aware of the risk and harm of
the unlawful and dirty tricks which Nishikant Dubey may (not necessarily)
employ.
4949. Nishikant Dubey might
file a completely false and baseless (as the facts stated above would convince
anyone) in some obscure small city Court and manage the process of summons and
notices in a manner that a non-bailable warrant is issued against me.
5050. Nishikant Dubey or his
men may physically or verbally harm me or disturb my peace if and when I go for
attending the Court proceedings.
5151. Nishikant Dubey might
use other methods and tactics to harm me and my reputation.
5252. Let me state with
perfect humility that, while I am fully conscious of such danger, harm and
risk, I consider appeasing a bully, blackmailer or misuser of the system,
completely wrong and totally against my value system.
5353. I would, therefore, opt
for running this risk rather than compromising on principles and facts.
WHETHER I WILL FILE A DEFAMATION
CASE?
5454. As detailed in the above
paragraphs, Nishikant Dubey has committed many acts which are clearly false,
mischievous and defamatory.
5555. I, however, believe that
no one can defame me by making false statements, using crude language,
threatening and making defamatory claims. My reputation, in my judgement, is
not affected by such acts.
5656. Therefore, while the
statements of Nishikant Dubey I have recorded above, amount to, in my
judgement, criminal defamation under the law, I have decided not to file any
defamation case against Nishikant Dubey.
MY UNDERSTANDING OF DEFAMATION LAW
AND FACTS OF CASE
5757. That my narration of the
incident of Nishikant Dubey trying to pressurise me to use my offices to make
LIC chairman effect the transfer which Nishikant Duby is completely true, fully
corroborated by the actions of Nishikant Dubey in rushing to the office of
Principal Secretary to Prime Minister to poison his mind misusing completely
true evidence of mine in the Ayushman Bharat case, forcing me to give evidence
in a Parliamentary sub-committee on Taxation which prima facie had no relation
to my official work in the Department of Economic Affairs and him writing to
Prime Minister without any rhyme and reason to complain about my adherence to
fiscal deficits (which I was bound to do). Truth negates defamation completely
under the Section 356 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Samhita, which defines and
criminalises Defamation.
5858. Any imputation under
Section 356 (I) is defamatory only if an imputation, by spoken words is made or
published, is intended to harm the reputation of another person. By my
narration in the Shalini Tiwari podcast, I intended to state a truthful story
to counter the false and malicious statements made by Nishikant Dubey in his X
post on 2/3 September terming me having gone made, an Agyani (ignorant) person,
who was transferred out of finance ministry Raton Rat (post haste) and me not
having overcome that Sadma (shock). I had every reason to counter these false
and malicious statements and accusations of Nishikant Dubey, publicly made by
him and when pointed question was asked to me on such wrong statements of
Nishikant Dubey. My response to Shalini Tiwari’s question caused no harm to
Nishikant Dubey’s reputation. It only presented the truth about the entire
matter. As no harm could have been caused to Nishikant Dubey’s reputation by a
truthful narration, there is no defamation in the law.
5959. Further, my words and
narration were to express in good faith respecting the conduct of a public
servant in the discharge of his public functions (speaking to Principal
Secretary to Prime Minister and writing a letter complaining about me to Prime
Minister) or respecting Nishikant Dubey’s character, as it appeared in these
conducts. This is fully and squarely covered by the Exception 2 of the Section
356.
6060. My narration of the
entire case was also an expression in good faith of an opinion respecting the
conduct of Nishikant Dubey touching a public question and his character
relating thereto. This is also fully covered in the Exception 3 of the Section
356.
6161. Therefore, to conclude,
my opinion expressed with respect to Nishikant Dubey is perfectly legitimate,
truthful and covered by exceptions to Defamation in Section 356 of the BNS.
Therefore, there is no defamation in any manner in this case.
FINAL STATEMENT
6262. In the end, in response
to the notice of Nishikant Dubey, I restate that the actions of Nishikant Dubey
in bringing undue pressure on me to use my office to get an undeserving
transfer wanted by him done and his attempts to poison the mind of Principal Secretary
to Prime Minister, misusing the process of Parliamentary Committee/ Sub
Committee and writing a letter to Prime Minister to prejudice his mind against
me, all to teach me a lesson for not doing his illegal and undesirable bidding,
amounted to bullying and blackmailing and makes Nishikant Dubey a person of
bullying and blackmailing type.
REPLY
6363. This reply is being
despatched to you through speed post/ courier and also emailed to you at amitvawasthi@gmail.com, the address given in
your notice on 26 September, within the seven days (I received your notice on
23 September). I am also placing it in social media in response to this notice
of yours placed by Nishikant Dubey on social media.
6464. The notice dated
21.09.2026 issued by you is completely unwarranted and unjustified. The reliefs
and actions you demanded in Section F: Demands deserves to be fully dismissed.
[Subhash Chandra Garg]
Comments
Post a Comment