This is with reference to the article, “Supreme Court: ideal if such projects are handled by PSUs” (May 8). The observations are potentially troubling and seem incorrect. What constitutes a natural resource? How is it defined? Is the definition subject to change? Would the Supreme Court someday classify human beings as a natural resource, only to be employed by the PSUs? For an entrepreneur engaged in any business or a service whose principal inputs are people, would the entire business be at risk then? At what point can one be assured he would not be using a natural resource of some kind which could potentially be subjected to an arbitrary curtailment? The court suggests that it is shortage of funds and technical know-how that has led to the PSUs not being the exclusive developers of natural resources. Not so. Over the last decade or so, multiple Indian companies have raised funds (equity and/or debt, domestically and internationally) to invest in various enterprises. With government support, the PSUs could have leveraged their “exclusive rights” to natural resources to raise any amount.

The intent is not to critique the judgment in a petty family squabble. However, it is troubling to see the underlying thought processes of, and beliefs held by, important institutions.

Rajesh Krishnamurthy,

W. Simsbury, Connecticut

Keywords: Supreme CourtPSUs

More In: Letters | Opinion