The Corporate & Commercial Law Society Blog, HNLU

Author: HNLU CCLS

  • Bridging the Gap in Indian Group Insolvency: Integrating Planning Proceedings

    Bridging the Gap in Indian Group Insolvency: Integrating Planning Proceedings

    BY KRITI MEHTA, THIRD- YEAR STUDENT AT NIRMA UNIVERSITY, AHMEDABAD

    INTRODCUTION

    The world has witnessed the prevalence of enterprise groups with the advent of globalisation and market integration. Particularly in India, as of March 2020, companies which are listed in the NIFTY 50 Index reported having an average of 50 subsidiaries. Despite restrictions by the Ministry of Corporate Affairs on subsidiary layers, complex corporate structures persist, creating challenges like operational linkages, group disintegration, and loss of synergies. In the absence of a comprehensive framework for resolution, it results in reduced value of the asset, inefficient treatment of creditors of solvent entities within the enterprises, prolonged delays, among others. Therefore, a holistic framework for group insolvency becomes pertinent to prevent inconsistent adjudication and erosion of collective enterprise value.

    Firstly, the blog evaluates the pre-existing international approaches to group insolvency and examines the legislative response of the UK to the same. Secondly, the blog argues that India’s current insolvency framework is inadequate for group insolvency and adopting the procedure for planning proceedings as proposed in the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (‘UNCITRAL’) will enable coordinated restructuring. Against this backdrop, it is imperative to acknowledge that the present discussion is confined to the domestic dimension of group insolvency only

    INTERNATIONAL FRAMEWORK ON GROUP INSOLVENCY  

    Internationally, two remedies address complexities arising in group insolvency. These are procedural coordination and substantive consolidation.  Procedural coordination preserves the principle of separate legal existence as laid down in Salomon v. Salomon. Additionally, it also streamlines procedural elements like the filing of cases, timelines of submissions, and coordination among key stakeholders like insolvency professionals and creditors. Conversely, substantive consolidation dispenses with the legal principle of separate legal entity by pooling all the assets and liabilities of the entities for insolvency resolution. This approach leads to the equitable treatment of creditors, particularly where the management of corporate entities is intertwined and meaningful disentanglement is not probable.

    However, this approach has drawn significant criticism from scholars worldwide as it undermines corporate autonomy. These companies have separate legal existence, but they are a single economic unit; therefore, the court has to lift the corporate veil and give precedence to the single economic entity principle. Consequently, its application is an exceptional remedy, invoked only when a separate legal existence will frustrate the principle of equitable distribution during resolution. While these approaches are developed in other jurisdictions, their legal adoption in India remains limited, necessitating judicial innovation. In the Indian insolvency regime, the doctrine of a separate legal entity is deeply rooted. This necessitates the adoption of procedural coordination between the corporate entities, since the substantive coordination will lead to pooling of assets and liabilities. This undermines the principle of separate legal existence. Thereby, procedural co-ordination aligns with the Indian jurisprudential analysis without unsettling the settled doctrines of separate legal existence and single economic entity principle.

    LEGAL FRAMEWORK IN INDIA

    The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (‘IBC’), lacks a legal framework governing group insolvency. Judicial interpretation has played a pertinent role in filling the legislative vacuum. In Embassy Property Developments Private Ltd v. State of Karnataka, the Court acknowledged the jurisdiction of the National Company Law Tribunal (‘NCLT’) to consolidate insolvency proceedings of entities that form part of the same corporate group under 60(5)(c) of IBC, 2016. Further, in State Bank of India v. Videocon Industries, the NCLT Mumbai bench evolved the twin test to determine the necessity of consolidation. The test examined certain ingredients, viz, common control, common liabilities, pooling of resources, interlacing of finance, intricate link of subsidiaries, singleness of economic units, and common pooling of resources. The court underscored that consolidation should be denied only if it is prejudicial to the stakeholders or violates the objectives of the code.

    The judiciary further shed light on the operational difficulties inherent in the group insolvency process through the Jet Airways case. The Apex court highlighted operational challenges in group insolvency, including intertwined assets and liabilities among the entities, a lack of coordination between authorities and the resolution professional (‘RP’), which leads to procedural delays. While the ad hoc measures are employed by the adjudicating authorities, the absence of codification impedes the successful resolution of group insolvency proceedings.

    Recognising these challenges, the 2025 Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (Amendment) Bill 2025 (‘Bill’) attempted to introduce a robust framework for group insolvency by including Chapter V-A. However, these efforts are not immune to criticism as the Bill does not incorporate planning proceedings, as introduced by the UNCITRAL on Enterprise Group Insolvency (‘MLEGI’) under section 2(g).

    GROUP INSOLVENCY AND PLANNING PROCEEDINGS

    Planning proceedings are a specialised process under group insolvency resolution designed to develop a combined plan for restructuring or liquidation. This concept of planning proceeding is envisaged under MLEGI. Under Article 2(g), for proceedings to qualify as a planning proceeding in a domestic dispute, two conditions must be satisfied:

    1. The proceedings must involve the participation of more than one group member for implementing the group insolvency solution; and
    2. A group representative must be appointed, who will facilitate coordination among the group members.

    This indicates that the planning proceeding is an insolvency proceeding of one of the group members in which one or more groups of the enterprise voluntarily participate. A group insolvency solution is the objective of these proceedings. It may pertain to the reorganisation, sale or liquidation of assets or operations of the companies to protect and enhance the combined value of the group.

    The distinction between planning and the main group insolvency proceeding is conceptual as well as functional. A main group insolvency proceeding is initiated in the jurisdiction where the debtor has its Centre of Main Interest, and its scope is confined to the default of a corporate debtor only. Under the Indian insolvency regime, there is no parallel regulatory framework like Article 2(g) of MLEGI that addresses procedural coordination during insolvency. Recently, through judicial intervention, there have been group insolvency proceedings, but the efforts remain constrained.

    ANALYSIS

    Under the Indian insolvency regime, the rigid distinction between the parent and the subsidiaries, coupled with the exclusion of the related entities from participation in the insolvency process, undermines the revival of the corporate debtor. Through the incorporation of planning proceedings within the domestic framework, the insolvency process can become more proficient. Such coordination facilitates the revival of the CD owing to the efficient management of the assets between subsidiaries and the parent company.

    In contrast to the Indian framework,  planning proceedings operate as a coordinated framework which envisages the restructuring of the multiple entities in the enterprise group. The court is authorised to approve inter-company financing, stay of actions or central administrative actions within a group. This preserves the going concern value of the insolvent entities, and also curbs the domino effect of structural and functional complications post-insolvency on the related entities of the group.

    The model law states that planning proceedings generally warrant the participation of related solvent entities through the appointment of a single RP that serves multiple affiliates, and ensures better coordination and long-term profit. This is in contrast to existing Indian insolvency framework, which restricts participation to insolvent entities only, foreclosing the possibility of contribution of resources for a collective recovery. The adoption of planning proceedings offers several potential benefits for the domestic insolvency framework.  The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India working group observed that the separate insolvency of the group enterprise reduces credit value. The consolidation of multiple Corporate Insolvency Resolution Processes (‘CIRP’) into one planning proceeding leads to maximisation of assets, reduction in duplication, prevents conflicting resolutions and leads to better coordination. It also incentivises stakeholders, like the creditors, to lend more finance as they can file inter-company claims.The planning model would therefore mitigate the domino effect of the group distress.

    Hence, the Indian legislature may warrant examination of a tailored framework by defining planning proceedings within the domestic insolvency framework, consistent with Indian standards. The authorities must avoid verbatim adoption of the model law as evidenced by the conundrum of interpretive debates on Section 34, Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996, that arose during Gayatry Balwaswamy’s judgment.

    To incorporate domestic needs, the law must also authorise the NCLT to grant relief under the planning proceeding. The legislature may take reference to MLEGI, Article 26, which requires separate approval from a member of the CoC. Any plan approved under the planning proceeding should be binding on all the participants, upon sanction by the NCLT. When the international model law is calibrated to align with domestic needs, it will lead to better adjudication, coordinated restructuring, and the prevention of value erosion from fragmented proceedings.

    PLANNING PROCEEDINGS IN THE UK

    The United Kingdom is among the few jurisdictions which actively implemented MLEGI, particularly planning proceedings. The proposed framework authorises a group representative to seek relief, for instance, injunctions, stays on the order, etc, to protect the value of the group. Pertinently, the framework allows participation of foreign creditors without necessitating parallel proceedings.  The applicable law for creditors will be the one that would have applied if the insolvency proceedings had been commenced. The UK also considered examining the interaction between MLEGI and 26A of the (UK) Companies Act 2006, which provides for restructuring plans. The government remarks that despite the broad definition of planning, the model did not incorporate restructuring plans, which may be pertinent for the successful implementation.

    Notwithstanding the proactive stance, the proposed implementation by the UK parliament reflects anomalies. A primary concern arises under Article 5 of MLEGI, which mandates the designation of a competent authority. Although the UK consultation suggested that an accountant in bankruptcy could potentially act as an authority, they have clarified that they don’t intend to create new institutional bodies. Hence, it is ambiguous which institution or court will be entrusted with the statutory function under Article 5. This institutional indeterminacy has direct repercussions on the creditor treatment, as fragmented adjudicatory treatment creates divergent approaches that undermine the efficiency of the proposed law. While the model law leaves it to the domestic court to manage the conflict, there have been no guidelines from the appropriate authority.

    CONCLUSION

    The growing pertinence of group insolvency has exposed the limitations of the IBC in addressing the challenges to financial distress. Judicial interventions have tried to fill the vacuum, with little success owing to the problems of value erosion and loss of operational synergies, among others. In this context, the MLEGI provides a unique solution through the introduction of planning proceedings. It preserves the dominant legal principle of separate legal existence while also facilitating collective restructuring without adopting substantive consolidation. Therefore, it necessitates the statutory introduction of planning proceedings with tailored domestic safeguards. Additionally, the appellate court should be empowered to grant interim reliefs including appointing a group representative, to ensure information symmetry across group entities. A calibrated implementation of the planning process will enhance value maximisation and strengthen creditors’ confidence in the Indian insolvency regime.

  • Tick-Box to Truth – SEBI’s 2025 Clarifications and the Crisis of Director Autonomy

    Tick-Box to Truth – SEBI’s 2025 Clarifications and the Crisis of Director Autonomy

    BY HARSHITA DHINWA AND RAM SUNDAR SINGH AKELA, FOURTH- YEAR STUDENTS AT NUSRL, RANCHI

    INTRODUCTION

    The first six months of 2025 saw a historic culling of Independent Directors from Corporate boardrooms in India where more than 150 Independent directors voluntarily resigned from numerous listed companies, not in anticipation to join new ventures but as an ultimate defense against the unprecedented growth in regulatory scrutiny and personal liability. The prime mover in this instance is the Securities and Exchange Board of India’s (‘SEBI’) 2025 clarificatory note on “Material pecuniary relationship” with securities under Regulation 16(1)(b)(iv) of the Listing Obligations and Disclosure Requirements (‘LODR’) Regulations 2015. However, a deeper look into the high-profile cases such as InfoBeans Technologies 2025, Byju’s 2024-25, Paytm Payments Bank 2024, Dewan Housing Finance Corporation Limited 2021-23, and Punjab and Maharashtra Co-operative PMC Bank 2019 -20 show a systemic connection where in all of them, the directors identified promoter domination, limited information about the financial data, and the threat of retrospective legal action as the main drivers. The main motive is to strengthen such governance by rewiring what the concept of independence means, to go beyond formal financial bright-lines to examine the relative economic and social frameworks that CEOs and nominal IDs should be freed from.

    SEBI’S 2025 CLARIFICATIONS: A SHIFT IN STANDARD OF INDEPENDENCE

    SEBI’s informal guidance to InfoBeans Technologies on May 14. 2025, clarifying “material pecuniary relationship” under  Regulation 16(1)(b)(iv) of the LODR Regulations left a big shift in independent directorships as a mere formula compliance to its substantive decision-making by independent directors, which saw a significant shift from size and revenue-based materiality assessment.

    Historically, Section 149(6) of the Companies Act, 2013, defined independence with the help of a quantifiable limit where pecuniary transactions not exceeding 10% of a director’s total income over two preceding final years would be considered independent.  SEBI’s clarification introduced a more wholesome evaluation of ongoing relationship, indirect economic ties and potential biasness to judgment, without numerical limits. Through InfoBeans, SEBI evaluated an Independent Director’s (‘ID’) proposed consultancy with an overseas subsidiary, compensated with 10% of their income, noting that materiality under LODR lacks a fixed ceiling, urging boards and Nomination and Remuneration Committee (NRC’s) to prioritize substance over form in its assessment of independence.

    This aligns with the Ministry of Corporate Affairs’ (‘MCA’) General Circular No. 14/2014, which excluded sitting fees and reimbursement from assessment of pecuniary relationship while focusing on autonomy. Moreover, the J.J. Irani Committee Report (2005) recommended assessing materiality from the director’s or Recipient’s perspective, proposing a 10% income threshold for transactions, that is, the key consideration will be whether the scale of financial involvement is substantial enough to compromise the director’s involvement. According to ICAI’s “Technical Guide on the Provision of Independent Directors from Corporate Governance Perspective, 2021”, the method of fiscal compilation should be disregarded, while also citing MCA’s October MCA’s 2018 Offences Committee Report recommended a 20% cap (Excluding sitting fees) to curb the erosion of directors’ discretionary powers and to standardize the governance framework. Due Diligence Norms demand prime disclosures and retrospective inspections on “friendly” directors to prioritize independent directors’ bias-free judgements over formally induced compliance. This change challenges the board to rethink their appointment and oversight role, ensuring that IDs are free from any social and economic influence.

    THE MASS DEPARTURE: CRISIS DISGUISED AS COMPLIANCE

    SEBI’s clarification has nearly provoked a boardroom Exodus, with almost 549 IDs resigning in FY25, of which, 94% mid-term, most of which were serving on National Stock Exchange  comparable to 2019’s wave, where 1390+ IDs quit. Resignation is more seen in firms facing financial distress, regulatory sanction, or governance lapses, and where ID’s report promoter-driven opacity, restricted access to financial data and fear of personal liability is rampant. For instance, the IDs of Byju’s resigned stating promoter-controlled decision-making and lack of financial transparency, as reported in MCA filings. Paytm’s directors exited fearing personal liability when the Reserve bank of India imposed penalties for non-compliance, while PMC Bank’s directors were investigated for failing to detect loan irregularities. The IL&FS crisis, where IDs were liable for oversight failures despite limited access to information, sets a precedent. Further, a 2025 NSE report noted a 30% resignation spike post-clarification, showing a crisis masked as compliance. The InfoBeans guidance multiplied fears of retrospective liability, as SEBI’s overall scrutiny exposed IDs to risk for past decisions, even beyond what they have in control.

    This “regulated retreat” arises from an inherent imbalance in structure where IDs face fiduciary and criminal liability under Section 149(8) of the Companies Act and SEBI’s review of regulatory provisions related to independent directors, but lack veto power, access to audit reports, or whistleblower protections. Unlike the system governing the U.S., where the Business Judgment Rule shields diligent directors, India’s framework leaves IDs in a much vulnerable position. It has been seen that IDs were penalized in  SAHARA India v. SEBI for promoter-driven judgments despite restricted authority. The legality was defeated in Chanda Kochhar V. SEBI, where IDs were examined for endorsing inequitable loans exposed under Section 149 as parental predominance over promoters. ID Nusli Wadia, who was revealed in the Tata-Mistry saga, also exposed parental superiority. This appears in the MCA’s 2018 Offences Committee Report, pointing ID liability concerns as one of the motives for quitting, which requests increased safeguarding of Section 149. The absence of being able to manage this risk without authority is what, in fact, leads good directors to quit high-risk companies, which in turn triggers the need for our IDs to be upgraded seamlessly, plus for the governance to re-establish its integrity

    THE PAPER-THIN PROMISE OF INDEPENDENCE

    Section 149(6) of the Companies Act, 2013, and Regulation 16 of LODR, create a mirage of independence by prioritizing formal disqualifications such as past financial ties, shareholding, or employment over functional autonomy.  In promoter-dominated firms, constituting 60% of listed entities, IDs are often selected by promoters, undermining their primary role as stakeholder guardians. The Kotak Committee Report (2017) criticized NRCs for acting as rubber stamps, failing to rigorously vet independence as evidenced in Dish TV India Ltd. (2021 BSE Filing), where minority shareholders challenged ID appointments for lacking autonomy and exposing promoter overreach. Similarly, in N. Narayan v. SEBI, IDs were penalized for governance lapses without direct involvement, highlighting judicial overreach that generally disregards Section 149(12)’s liability limits.

    The absence of the safe harbor Doctrine and the Delaware–style “entire fairness” test, which protects directors by scrutinizing conflicted transactions, worsens the ID exodus. Originally a creature of U.S. corporate law, the Safe Harbor Doctrine protects directors from liability arising out of decisions made in good faith, with due care and in the best interests of its company, even though outcomes can come out adverse. In the state of Delaware, the theory is codified in the “Business Judgment rule” which presumes director are diligent unless proven otherwise. This sharply contrasts with Section 149(12), which limits ID liability to act with knowledge or consent, but is inconsistently enforced as seen in the Narayan v. SEBI case.

    In addition, the U.K.’s Stewardship Code, issued by the Financial Reporting Council, mandates BODs and institutional investors to prioritize long-term value, transparency, and stakeholder interests, and requires annual disclosure of voting policies and dissent. Principle 7 emphasizes board independence, urging directors to challenge management constructively. In Royal Dutch Shell plc, the Code’s application compelled directors to disclose climate-related governance decisions, thereby enhancing accountability. India’s Regulation 25 mandates separate ID meetings, but these lack the Code’s rigor, as seen in the case study of Yes Bankfiasco , where IDs failed to curb risky lending due to promoter dominance and limited collective action.

    REIMAGINING INDEPENDENCE – A BLUEPRINT FOR REFORMS

    Halting the departure and regaining trust requires the implementation of reforms in India’s corporate governance. Firstly, since promoter dominance affects 60% of listed companies, it must be controlled by mandating independent third-party nomination panels as proposed per CII . These Panels will compromise minority shareholders, institutional investors and industry experts ensuring that ID appointments are based on expertise and autonomy. Secondly, in addition to the self-declaration under Section 149, promoters should explicitly state whether they have any prior economic, social, or historical relationships with ID candidates, either professionally or financially. This will be supported financially by NRCs and audited by external auditors, thus maintaining transparency and individual choice, preventing such promoter-led appointments. Thirdly, the implementation of the safe harbor doctrine for IDs who are on-record documents of dissent in board minutes. SEBI has recommended this in its consultation paper on directors’ protections, reducing the threat of multiple resignations due to IDS fearing punishment for not protecting the company.

     Fourth, flexibility and competitiveness in remuneration: SEBI in 2019 proposed capped stock options needing both shareholder and minority approval. Here, remuneration is competitive with attracting high-caliber talent but that does not compromise their independence. By the 2018 Report for MCA unlike high fees, which consider sitting fees insufficient, this alignment’s alternative ID incentives with the businessman’s interests; therefore, they should be retained. Fifthly, regular training on finance, risk, and compliance should be guaranteed and Formal evaluations of ID performance should be conducted. Sixthly, using Regulation 25 separate ID meetings to arrange red flags and Section 150’s databank and expertise tests for experienced IDs should be streamlined; these reforms would make ids empowered overseers, not ornamental figures.

    CONCLUSION

    Independence now feels like  escape, not strength. What was obtained to construct what SEBI 2025 will build has instead exposed the unwillingness of our setup to deny real power but equally demand responsibility. The interpretation of “material pecuniary relationship” under Section 149(6) (c) of the Companies Act and Regulation 16(1)(b)(iv) of SEBI’s LODR Regulations, certainly post-SEBI’s InfoBeans guidance, shows a stark shift from tick-the-box to substance. Independence can be assessed not just on paper but equally in spirit, making it free from past ties, undue influence or hidden loyalties. Independence must be both real and visible for effective governance.

    To stem the prevalent exodus of IDs and reinstate confidence in corporate governance, Section 149(6), (12) of the Companies Act, and Regulations 16 and 25 of LODR should be amended to include a safe harbour doctrine for the protection of dissenting IDs, a guarantee for full access to audit data & whistleblower protection, and independent nomination panels without influence of promoters. Remuneration should be fixed with independence safeguards to balance autonomy and talent attraction in the industry, and a materiality threshold should be codified to ascertain pecuniary relationships.  These amendments will ensure independence, substantive rather than symbolic, and they will strengthen integrity in corporate governance.

  • From Price Control to Market Discipline: Reading SEBI’s Base Expense Ratio Reform in Comparative Perspective

    From Price Control to Market Discipline: Reading SEBI’s Base Expense Ratio Reform in Comparative Perspective

    BY AADIT SHARMA, SECOND YEAR STUDENT AT RMLNLU, LUCKNOW

    INTRODUCTION

    India’s mutual fund industry has experienced accelerated growth with assets under management increasing from ₹72.2 lakh crores in May 2025 to ₹80.8 lakh crores by November 2025 with retail investors having a larger chunk in the market. It is in this context of rapid market expansion and retail involvement that the Securities and Exchange Board of India’s (‘SEBI’) circular dated 17 December 2025(‘Circular’) introducing the Base Expense Ratio (‘BER’) has been primarily discussed as a numerical or transparency-driven intervention. The earlier Total Expense Ratio (‘TER’) was a single, all-inclusive umbrella cap that bundled together the fund’s core management fees, distributor commissions and operating costs along with various statutory and regulatory levies (such as GST, STT, Stamp Duty and SEBI fees) into one consolidated percentage. The now introduced BER includes unbundling of costs. It states that the BER will only include the base core scheme-level expenses such as management fees, distribution costs and routine administration, while statutory and regulatory levies are excluded and charged separately on actuals. 

    This article argues that the BER framework reflects a measured shift by SEBI from merit-based price control towards disclosure-led market discipline, while consciously stopping short of full deregulation. When viewed in a comparative international context, the reform reflects a cautious alignment with global regulatory trends rather than a blind replication of foreign models.

    FROM BUNDLED CONTROL TO SELECTIVE TRANSPARENCY

    Prior to the circular, mutual fund expenses in India were regulated under a TER framework that bundled discretionary fund management fees with statutory and regulatory levies such as GST, Securities Transaction Tax, exchange fees, and SEBI charges. Although nominally framed as a disclosure-based ceiling, the TER regime functioned substantively as merit regulation because SEBI did not merely mandate disclosure of costs but prescribed binding ceilings on total expenses regulated under SEBI (Mutual Funds) Regulations, 1996. By prescribing category-wise caps on the aggregate chargeable expense, SEBI effectively determined what constituted a ‘reasonable’ cost structure for mutual funds, embedding its regulatory judgement directly into cost limits. Investor protection under this framework was achieved less through competitive pricing or informed choice and more through ex ante regulatory intervention. Even where SEBI permitted limited add-ons such as the additional allowance of up to 0.05 basis points in specified circumstances, including exit load–linked expenses, the underlying architecture remained one of bundled cost control, with statutory pass-through levies obscuring the true pricing of fund management services.

    The BER reform marks a deliberate reconfiguration of this approach. By separating core fund management costs from statutory and regulatory levies, now charged on actuals, SEBI has partially withdrawn from adjudicating the fairness of total expenses. Instead, it has enabled investors to evaluate the pricing of asset management services independently of compulsory charges. This shift represents a recalibration rather than an abandonment of regulatory control: while aggregate cost assessment is displaced in favor of transparency and comparability, SEBI has consciously retained category-wise caps on the base component. This reflects continued skepticism about the disciplining capacity of markets in a retail-dominated ecosystem. However, the reform is not without structural consequences. Although statutory levies are excluded for all funds under the BER framework, the practical benefits of this change are not evenly distributed. Large Asset Management Companies (AMCs)which typically operate close to the regulatory TER ceiling benefit from the removal of mandatory levies such as GST and transaction-related taxes from the capped expense head, as this reclassification restores usable pricing space and cushions margin pressure without requiring any adjustment to headline fees. Smaller AMCs, by contrast, generally price their schemes below regulatory caps and therefore derive limited incremental flexibility from the reform. While the BER framework advances transparency, but does not significantly change competitive conditions, as its practical benefits accrue mainly to AMCs constrained by existing expense ceilings. This outcome underscores the limits of disclosure-led governance in addressing distributive and competitive asymmetries that were previously moderated through aggregate cost controls.

    COMPARATIVE PERSPECTIVE: CONVERGENCE AND DELIBERATE DIVERGENCE

    A.    United States: Disclosure Without Price Ceilings

    In the United States (‘US’) mutual fund regulation is   administered by the Securities and Exchange Commission (‘SEC’) under the Investment Company Act of 1940. It is premised on a combination of disclosure, investor education and procedural safeguards rather than direct regulation of fee levels. The SEC does not impose ceilings on expense ratios; instead funds are required to disclose management fees, distribution expenses (including 12b-1 fees) and operating costs in standardized formats leaving pricing discipline to investor choice and competitive pressures. The SEC requires that mutual funds disclose the expense ratios in key documents such as the prospectus and shareholder reports enabling investors to compare costs across funds.

    By contrast SEBI’s BER framework reflects a more cautious regulatory stance. Although disclosure has been strengthened through cost unbundling, SEBI has retained category-wise caps on base expenses, signaling an institutional judgement that disclosure alone may be insufficient to discipline pricing in a predominantly retail market.

    B. European Union: Transparency with Behavioral Framing

    The European Union’s (‘EU’) regulatory framework particularly under the Packaged retail and insurance-based investment products (PRIIPs), places strong emphasis on cost transparency through mandatory Key Information Documents . The EU regulatory framework is premised on the view that disclosure is effective only when it can be readily understood by retail investors. Accordingly, the PRIIPs regime requires investment costs to be presented in standardized formats and in many instances to be expressed in monetary terms over defined holding periods rather than only as percentages. This approach reflects an explicit regulatory acknowledgement that purely numerical disclosures may not be sufficient to inform investors in decision-making.

    SEBI’s BER framework aligns with the EU’s approach in unbundling costs and enhancing comparability across schemes but differs in its method of disclosure. While the Indian framework improves numerical transparency by separating base expenses from statutory levies it does not mandate behavioral framing or investor-oriented presentation of costs.  The reform enhances visibility of pricing components  but stops short of shaping how investors interpret or process that information.

    Taken together, these comparisons indicate that SEBI’s reform represents hybrid regulatory design. It borrows transparency mechanisms from global best practices while retaining structural controls suited to domestic conditions. The result is neither full convergence with them nor resistance to them but selective adaptation.

     THE LIMITS OF DISCLOSURE AS INVESTOR PROTECTION

    Disclosure-based regulation rests on the assumption that investors are able to read, understand and meaningfully compare cost information across financial products. In practice, this assumption is unevenly satisfied in India’s predominantly  retail driven mutual fund market. Levels of  low financial literacy are entangled with perceived complexity and limited information on investors’ part. As a result, the investors rely on intermediaries, brand reputation or recent returns rather than cost metrics when making investment decisions. In this context, the BER framework may improve the visibility of expense components without necessarily altering investor behavior. While headline base expense figures are now easier to identify, investors may underappreciate the cumulative impact of statutory levies charged separately or may continue to prioritize short-term performance over cost efficiency. As a result, transparency may not translate into effective market discipline. This does not undermine the regulatory rationale of the BER reform, but it highlights an inherent limitation: disclosure can function as a meaningful tool of investor protection only where investors possess the capacity and incentives to use the information disclosed.

    CONCLUSION: MAKING TRANSPARENCY EFFECTIVE

    The introduction of the BER marks a recalibration of mutual fund regulation rather than a completed transition. By unbundling statutory levies from core scheme expenses SEBI has created the conditions for improved cost comparison but transparency alone will not ensure market discipline unless it is operationalized through complementary regulatory practices.

    To realise the BER framework’s potential, post-implementation monitoring must assume central importance. SEBI should systematically track how expense structures evolve under the new regime and whether cost efficiencies are passed on to investors or absorbed within margins and distribution incentives. Periodic, category-wise publication of BER trends could strengthen competitive pressure without additional rulemaking.

    The impact of disclosure also depends on how intermediaries operate. In a market dominated by retail investors, transparency at the scheme level will have limited effect if distributors continue to shape investment decisions without regard to costs. Unless distributor incentives and point-of-sale disclosures reflect BER-related cost differences, investors are unlikely to use this information in practice. In addition, small improvements in how costs are presented such as showing base expenses alongside statutory levies can help investors better understand the total cost of investing, even without introducing formal behavioral mandates.

    Read this way the BER reform is best understood as a foundational step. Its success will depend less on arithmetic recalibration and more on whether transparency is translated into sustained pricing discipline through monitoring, intermediary oversight and usable disclosure.

  • Are Depositories Becoming Systemic Risk Guardians? SEBI’s Quiet Shift in 2025

    Are Depositories Becoming Systemic Risk Guardians? SEBI’s Quiet Shift in 2025

    BY KEERTANA R MENON, THIRD YEAR STUDENT AT NUALS, KOCHI

    INTRODUCTION

    The concept of “systemic risk” has traditionally been synonymous with the banking sector, the giant lenders and financial intermediaries whose collapse could send shockwaves across the economy. The assumption here is that capital market infrastructure is mainly operational in nature. When we refer to infrastructure here, we make a special mention of depositories. In India, the Reserve Bank of India (‘RBI’) has stringent regulatory frameworks for these entities, formally labelling them as Domestic Systemically Important Banks (‘D-SIBs’).

    In contrast, market infrastructure entities, including depositories like the National Securities Depository Limited (‘NSDL’) and the Central Depository Services Limited (‘CDSL’), have occupied a much humbler space in the regulatory system. They are perceived as operational backbones that act as passive service layers. They are considered dedicated to record-keeping, dematerialization, and settlement facilitation. They are concerned with Market Infrastructure (‘FMI’), but most importantly, they are not market drivers. They do not engage in lending or funding activities that traditionally trigger systemic crises.

    This decades-old perception, however, has just been challenged by the SEBI (Depositories and Participants) 3rd Amendment Regulations, 2025 (‘Amendment’). This amendment is not merely about tightening internal governance or implementing standard operational updates. Instead, it suggests a strategic change by the Securities and Exchange Board of India (‘SEBI’). By dramatically increasing oversight and mandating specialized technical roles, SEBI is now subtly positioning depositories as entities whose collapse could destabilise the entire market. This suggests that this amendment is the first step toward treating depositories as systemic fault points. SEBI is starting to regulate these entities in a manner similar to how the RBI scrutinizes the larger banks, breaking down the old divide between banking oversight and market oversight.

    THE RISE OF DIGITAL RISK: WHY THE OLD PARADIGM FAILED

    For decades, SEBI’s regulation of depositories largely focused on fiduciary duties, investor safety, and compliance. All of these are concerns suitable for paper-based or human-error risks. The idea that a depository could pose a systemic threat, and that too one capable of taking down the entire market, was dismissed. This dismissal was because they do not carry financial risk in the way that banks or major brokerages do.

    However, the nature of systemic risk has fundamentally changed. The capital market has taken a “cyber-first” shift. In a fully digitized ecosystem, the real point of failure is no longer human conduct or a default in capital, but system vulnerability.  A technical failure or a cyberattack can halt settlements, shut down exchanges, and freeze the whole cycle in seconds. Financial losses usually give regulators some time to react. Technical failures don’t. They spread immediately and shake the entire market.

    The infamous NSE trading halt in February 2021, caused by a technical glitch, became a stark, domestic reminder that trading stops if infrastructure goes down, irrespective of price movements or trader defaults.

    Depositories are what keep the market alive. They hold the core ownership records for all demat securities. Prices can swing wildly, and the market will still cope, but if these records fail, everything comes to a standstill. A depository outage shuts the entire market. In this sense, depositories were already systemically important, just not officially acknowledged or regulated as such. SEBI seems to be preparing for a future where systemic risk comes from the server room, not the boardroom.

    ANATOMY OF THE SHIFT: SIFI GOVERNANCE IN THE DEPOSITORY SECTOR

    The SEBI (Depositories and Participants) 3rd Amendment Regulations, 2025, gazetted in November 2025, has three primary aims: i) enhance corporate governance and strengthen risk management, ii) operational resilience and iii) introduce technology and cybersecurity leadership. The biggest changes that this amendment brings in involve the composition and responsibilities of the key management personnel. Through Regulations 24 and 26A, it raises the governance bar by adding Executive Directors (‘ED’) to the Board and reorganising leadership so that one ED oversees infrastructure and systems, while another handles risk management. The Managing Director is now directly responsible for compliance, day-to-day affairs, and stability of the depository’s core systems.

    SEBI also provides for a tech-focused oversight through Regulation 81B and 81C. Every depository must now appoint a Chief Technology Officer (‘CTO’) to manage all technology systems, IT risks, and respond to tech-audit findings. Similarly, they must also appoint a Chief Information Security Officer (‘CISO’) to handle cybersecurity threats. Senior executives are now barred from sitting on external boards without approval so that conflict-management norms are applied to highly sensitive financial entities.

    This is the kind of structure that was historically only seen in the regulation of Domestic Systemically Important Banks (‘D-SIBs’). SEBI wants to avoid this label, but the aim is clear. The rules now treat depositories as core institutions, not just background service providers.

    ARE DEPOSITORIES BEING BUILT TO BE TOO RESILIENT TO FAIL?

    Instead of going all the way and calling depositories “systemically important,” SEBI seems to be taking a slower, quieter route. A formal label would set off alarms immediately. It would pull depositories into the kind of scrutiny banks face, raise questions about capital rules that don’t really fit them, and force India to line up quickly with global standards. SEBI clearly doesn’t want that kind of regulatory shock.

    So, it’s choosing to build strength from the ground up. By tightening governance, creating specific tech and cyber roles, and placing responsibility on senior management, SEBI is making depositories sturdier without suddenly demanding capital buffers or liquidity norms they were never designed for. It’s a gradual hardening of the system instead of a problematic shift.

    This also nudges the market towards a more honest view of where its real risks lie. If everything is digital, then the infrastructure carrying that digital load becomes the sole point of vulnerability. SEBI is preparing for a world where the biggest threat to market stability isn’t a bad loan or a rogue trader but a server glitch, a cyber intrusion, or a system freeze.

    There’s also a quieter international angle here. Regulators like European Securities and Markets Authority and the US Securities and Exchange Commission have already started treating market infrastructures as potential systemic risks. SEBI appears to be moving in that direction without announcing it as a policy shift.  The idea guiding all of this is quite simple: SEBI doesn’t want to declare depositories “too critical to fail.” Instead, it’s trying to make them strong enough that the question never arises

    Depositories don’t give out credit. They don’t lend. But they hold the backbone of the market, which is the record of who owns what. 

    THE BIGGER QUESTION: WHAT COMES NEXT?

    If the 2025 amendment is really the first step towards regulating systemic risk in financial market infrastructure, the next steps will mostly focus on making depositories stronger and more resilient. We might see stress tests for systems and cyber defences, or even minimum resilience capital. The future may also witness coordinated contingency plans with SEBI, RBI, and exchanges, and regular independent cyber audits to check that the CTO and CISO roles are meeting their purpose.

    As the market becomes more digital, depositories are moving from simple back-office utilities to the backbone of the system. The amendment may be quiet, but it sends a clear message: the next big threat to market stability will be a failure in the infrastructure itself. SEBI is acting early to make sure these institutions are strong enough to withstand it by bringing securities oversight closer to the kind of robust framework banks have long followed. By tightening the screws before anything breaks, SEBI is signalling that resilience has to be built into the plumbing, not patched in after a shock. It’s a quiet shift, but one that will shape how India thinks about market stability in a digital market for years to come.

  • From Price to Experience: Expanding the Parameters of Relevant Market

    From Price to Experience: Expanding the Parameters of Relevant Market

    BY RICHA MARIA & KAVYA MITTAL, FOURTH & THIRD- YEAR STUDENTS AT RGNUL, PATIALA

    INTRODUCTION

    Post-pandemic, with 71% more people shopping in-person than before, the experiential retail market is a fundamental transition from a traditional market where consumers are immersed in a deeply curated sensory experience to drive loyalty. Unlike traditional retail, which focuses on product distribution and price competition, experiential retail prioritises environments where the shopping experience itself becomes the primary product offering. A prime example would be IKEA’s stores, where customers navigate impressive room setups to experience the product in consonance with realistic settings while relishing food courts and engaging with interactive displays. This differs drastically from conventional furniture retailers, primarily showcasing inventory with ‘please don’t sit on samples’ stickers, even though they might be competitive in price with the former.

    From an antitrust lens, the advent of experiential retail raises crucial questions regarding low substitutability, as consumers engaging with these experiences cannot easily switch to the traditional retail market. Often, consumers spend more when they interact with the unique services that a store offers, with 80% of customers likely to make a purchase if a brand serves a personalised experience. Given these novel considerations, the authors propose that accurate competition assessment requires establishing experiential retail as a distinct relevant product market since traditional market definitions may inadequately capture the unique competitive dynamics at play. By proposing a balancing test, the authors attempt to carve a way forward for the Competition Commission of India (‘CCI’) for its future analysis.

    THE INDIAN PERSPECTIVE: STATUTORY FOUNDATIONS

    Section 2(t) of the Competition Act, 2002 (‘Act’) defines the relevant product market as comprising products or services that are interchangeable or substitutable by consumers due to their characteristics, price and intended use. The parameters for delineating the relevant product market are enshrined within Section 19(7) of the Act; notably, the inclusion of consumer preferences indicates that non-price attributes are contemplated within the statute. Scholarly analysis identifies experiential retail’s four defining themes: brand worlds, fluidity, exceptional experiences, and novel value creation, which limit substitutability with traditional retail, and thereby support market differentiation under Section 19(7)’s consumer preference parameters. Thus, the authors propose that experiential retail should be recognised as a distinct relevant product market differentiated by customer preferences such as ambience, accessories, service and brand value, which could play a significant role in consumer choices.

    Building upon this foundation, competition regulators often employ the small but significant non-transitory increase in price (‘SSNIP’) test to assess the precise relevant market. According to this test, if a 5% to 10% price increase does not affect the demand, then that product would be considered as having no substitutes, and if the increase leads to consumers shifting their preferences to other similar products, then the relevant product market can be wider. In order to evaluate experiential retail against the SSNIP test, the CCI would have to examine whether a 5% increase in the price by the experiential retailer diverts demand to other experiential outlets or whether such a change to non-experiential outlets is minimal. The experiential outlet may qualify as a distinct relevant product market where consumer diversion is primarily limited to other experiential outlets rather than conventional retail formats.

    CCI’S ANALYSIS IN INDIA

    While the CCI has not explicitly categorised experiential retail as a separate relevant product market, its orders demonstrate a willingness to differentiate between separate relevant product markets for the same products on the basis of non-price criteria. In Sh. Ravi Beriwala and Lexus Motors and Ors., the CCI recognised that myriad factors influence the choice of purchase of a particular type of car, such as budget, convenience, accessories, comfort, brand name, facilities, features, looks, etc., which makes it a different class altogether. On this basis, the relevant product market was adjudged to be high-end luxury cars. Similarly, in Belaire Owner’s Association v. DLF Limited the relevant product market was identified as “services provided by developers for construction of high end residential buildings” as consumers were prepared to pay a premium for the extra performance. By analogy, while experiential retailers sell the ‘same’ product as mass outlets, features such as ambience, curated quality, branding and premium services cannot be replicated by mass outlets. Clearly, the CCI itself has accepted luxury as a distinct class due to factors such as budget, convenience, accessories, brand name, facilities, features and looks, which can also be features of experiential retail. Empirical evidence likewise suggests that consumers are more likely to pay more for experience, highlighting the willingness to pay a premium for non-price attributes, which reinforces the recognition of experiential retail as its own relevant product market.

    GLOBAL PERSPECTIVES ON MARKET SEGREGATION

    Competition authorities across the globe have steadily begun to acknowledge that the restricted traditional market definitions do not adequately cater to the augmenting complexities in the antitrust regime. The European Union’s nuanced approach in revising the Market Definition Notice explicitly recognises that competitive parameters extend beyond merely price and encompass the ‘image conveyed’, which is the entire experience of the consumer with the product, and is relevant to be judged as a comparative parameter, furthering the argument of establishing experiential retail as a distinct relevant market.

    The European Court of Justice’s ruling in Coty Germany GmbH v Parfümerie Akzente GmbH confirms that goods acquire value from curated experiences beyond mere functional utility. The segmentation of the luxury goods from mass products was justified, as it is based on the “aura of luxury” or the total intrinsic experience provided by the former. Thus, this precedent runs beyond luxury goods to any retail faction where experiential elements determine consumer choice. 

    In a similar vein, antitrust law has evolved parallelly in the United States to recognise market segmentation based on experience. The courts routinely rely on Brown Shoe factors to delineate relevant markets, which include recognition of the submarket as a separate economic entity and the product’s peculiar characteristics, among others. Federal Trade Commission v. Tapestry-Capri Holdings went a step ahead in establishing experiential market as a distinct relevant product market by recognising market segmentation on the basis of the experiential attributes and lifestyle positioning rather than pure functionality. Here, the accessible luxury handbag market was held to be a separate relevant product market, as it curated a distinct experience from mass-market and true luxury goods.

    However, this approach is not unprecedented. In United States v. Gillette Co., in order to segregate a sub-market out of a larger market, it was held that the relevant market must extend to recognise only those products which actually compete with each other and not superficially. This supports our argument of establishing an experiential market distinctly since mass products do not actually come at par with the products of the experiential segment, as they are coupled with certain additional characteristics and sensory experiences.

    Thus, the global perspectives on segregating goods for their premium experiences from mass products support the reasoning that market segmentation should be based on experiential attributes as well, rather than pure functionality.

    THE WAY FORWARD AND IMPLICATIONS

    The inclusion of experiential retail as a separate relevant product market and a non-price factor in antitrust analysis can have profound implications for investor decision-making, competitive assessment and retail strategizing. Experiential retail would also reshape investment priorities, where immersive brand environments drive higher rents and longer leases but also offer stronger customer engagement and generate ancillary revenue streams.

    Experiential retail as a separate relevant market would better enable antitrust authorities to detect anti-competitive conduct, even in cases where price competition remains unaffected. It will ensure that the market power of experiential retail brands is not understated by including irrelevant competitors in market share denominators, on the basis of mere functional substitutability. This would further augment investments in ambience, service quality, customer experience, and ensure brand differentiation and quality competition    receive appropriate weight in regulatory analysis.

    A key caution in recognising experiential retail as a separate product market is the risk of an overly broad ambit, which is why the authors recommend a balancing test. For this, the experience aspect should be the primary driver for consumers buying the product, and not merely a tertiary consideration. As per a study, a pleasant store experience is a primary factor in driving recurring customer visits, which means that the CCI must also consider quantitative aspects such as measuring the loyalty of a consumer to a product, a willingness to pay a premium price for the experience and an evaluation of consumer feedback that focuses on the ambience and brand value. Brand loyalty can be gauged through the number of returning customers compared with others in the relevant product market. When applying the SSNIP test, the CCI should ascertain whether the product demonstrates little to no alternative substitutes to non-experiential formats. If these criteria are satisfied, regulators can delineate a separate experiential market for competition assessments; if the conditions are not met, a broader relevant product market definition should be adopted instead of misclassifying the market power.

    Thus, the recognition of these competitive relationships ensures that regulatory analysis focuses on relevant competitive dynamics rather than theoretical substitution possibilities that rarely occur in practice. Hence, this would encourage continued innovation in customer experience delivery, ultimately enhancing consumer welfare through improved service and choice.

    CONCLUSION

    To conclude, the advent of the digital era has precipitated an unprecedented transformation in the traditional market structures, which requires antitrust authorities to recalibrate their approach in tune with market realities. This article argues that experiential retail should be evaluated as a distinct competitive space where non-price factors assume precedence in delineating the relevant product market since consumers are increasingly shifting towards valuing ambience, premium service and brand value, which limits substitution to mass outlets. Taking a leaf from foreign jurisprudence and a detailed study of CCI orders, the authors demonstrate that regulators are increasingly willing to recognise non-price attributes in defining markets. Moving forward, it would be interesting to witness in the future the CCI’s approach towards defining experiential retail as a distinct relevant product market. Such explicit recognition of experiential retail would not only safeguard consumer welfare, as it would lead to more accurate competition analysis, but also align Indian competition law with the emerging global practices.

  • ESG Labels, Real Impact: Accountability and Incentives in India’s ESG Debt Securities Market

    ESG Labels, Real Impact: Accountability and Incentives in India’s ESG Debt Securities Market

    BY ANSHIKA SAH AND ABHAVYA SHARAN, FOURTH – YEAR STUDENTS AT RMLNLU, LUCKNOW

    INTRODUCTION

    Using the term “sustainability” merely as a marketing label, without any supporting regulations or uniform standards, results in purpose-washing and, consequently, loss of credibility in sustainable finance and corporate practices. In recent times, there has been a rapid increase in the ESG finance landscape across the globe, with the market projected to reach approximately $7.02 trillion in 2025. However, a litany of high-profile purpose-washing cases has made this market vulnerable to increased scrutiny over credibility and enforcement.

    India’s exploration into this      arena has gained momentum with the release of a dedicated Framework for Environment, Social and Governance (‘ESG’) Debt Securities (other than green debt securities) by the Securities and Exchange Board of India (‘SEBI’). This article examines the proposed framework and discusses      the strategic incentives involved for Indian corporates in integrating ESG considerations in their core business strategies. By analyzing the challenges involved in the implementation of the same, the article concludes with a few policy recommendations to address these challenges for a more comprehensive and better-suited framework.

    OVERVIEW OF THE FRAMEWORK 

    While India has had an environmental bond program since 2015, the newer instruments lacked the consistent regulation they required. SEBI in June 2025 introduced a comprehensive framework (‘the framework’)     , redefining ESG Debt Securities to include social bonds, sustainability bonds, and Sustainability-linked bonds or (‘SLBs’), as the demand for sustainable finance grew. In social bonds, funds are used for projects addressing social issues, such as affordable housing and job creation     , whereas in sustainability bonds, funds are raised for a combination of green and social projects. SLBs, on the other hand, are tied to the issuer achieving certain pre-set sustainability goals. These bonds guide private investment towards achieving the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals (‘SDGs’). They also provide investors with a practical means to combine financial gains with environmental and social benefits. The significance and momentum of these instruments are highlighted by the      expanding global ESG bond market, while India’s own issuance of over USD 13.07 billion on IFSC exchanges by the end of September. Globally accepted and recognised standards, like the Climate Bonds Standard, ASEAN standards, EU Green Bond Standard, and International Capital Market Association (‘ICMA’) Principles, must be followed by these ESG Debt securities to protect against the risks of ‘purpose-washing’ and guarantee comparability.

    ENFORCEMENT AND ACCOUNTABILITY MECHANISMS  

    Disclosure, reporting, and third-party review are significant prerequisites. Transparency needs to be maintained by the issuers, and quantifiable proof of impact has to be provided under the new framework. Significant information, such as how the proceeds are going to be utilised, target population, project selection, and whether the bond will finance new or ongoing projects, needs to be disclosed. For SLBs, issuers must specify the key performance indicators (‘KPIs’) and sustainability performance targets (‘SPTs’). There has to be constant reporting subsequent to the issue of securities of the fund allocation progress, and its impact on the environment and society.

    An independent third-party review is a mandatory requirement in order to ensure that, after the issue, the bonds are accurately classified into the four categories which are ‘green bonds’, ‘social bonds’, ‘sustainability bonds’ and ‘sustainability-linked bonds’ and to confirm that disclosures and results align with the commitments made. For this, the issuer must have a review by an independent third-party with relevant expertise, such as SEBI-registered ESG ratings providers. In order to combat non-compliance, SEBI has also included safeguards like early redemption clauses and penalties. Such provisions enable investors to redeem their securities if a try-out is attempted to purpose-wash or if the commitments entered into are not met.

    Purpose-washing is defined as making false, misleading, unsubstantiated, or otherwise incomplete claims about a bond’s purpose, often by misrepresenting how the money will be used. SEBI’s rules are explicitly designed to combat this by mandating that social or sustainability bonds must fund only the projects and objectives disclosed at the time of issue, and any deviation must be disclosed immediately.      SLBs carry a heightened risk of purpose-washing as compared to green or sustainability bonds, owing to their structure of performance-based incentives, as issuers may set low or easily attainable KPIs simply to label instruments as sustainability-linked, without delivering meaningful impact. SEBI’s earlier February 2023 Green Bond Guidelines mandated ‘dos and don’ts’ to combat greenwashing by prohibiting misleading labels, data cherry-picking, and unverified environmental assertions. However, one of the most glaring issues is the implicit exclusion of SLBs from the applicability of measures to mitigate purpose-washing, given the international standard of penalizing non-compliance.

    INCENTIVE FOR ESG INTEGRATION

    The new framework by SEBI      incentivizes Indian companies to integrate ESG considerations into their core strategies. With the global ESG asset pool sizing up to more than $35 trillion, the framework positions India to tap into this pool, to attract global capital and long-term finance. This is evident from Larson & Toubro’s debut ESG bond, which demonstrated huge investor demand and received a AAA CRISIL rating, and was priced at a lower interest rate      of 6.35%, compared to 6.45–6.50% for similar non-ESG instruments in the secondary market, indicating clear financial advantages for compliant issuers.

    Further, SEBI’s requirement of standard ESG disclosure through the Business Responsibility and Sustainability Reporting (‘BRSR’) core and the proposed India-specific ESG parameters improve the scope of sectoral comparison while aligning ESG reporting with domestic priorities. A higher ESG rating encourages businesses to improve corporate governance and performance because it signals increased market credibility and a lower cost of capital. Leading examples are Infosys and L&T, which have incorporated ESG principles in their core business strategies to gain a competitive edge by leveraging innovation and sustainability.

    Furthermore, businesses can use their credible ESG governance and disclosure practices to gain access to global markets and secure preferred vendor status with multinational buyers, particularly in export-driven industries like automobiles, electronics, textiles, etc. Moreover, Developmental Financial Institutions (‘DFIs’) like NABARD and SIDBI also provide facilities like concessional finance and targeted incentive schemes for companies that demonstrate ESG performance and compliance with SEBI’s framework.

    COUNTER ARGUMENTS AND CHALLENGES IN THE INDIAN MARKET

    Despite the benefits, as the ESG finance market expands, it presents significant challenges for issuers. One primary challenge is that there is no universally accepted definition for ‘Social’ or ‘Sustainable’, leading to a lack of clarity in application and also inhibiting standardization. Issuers run the risk of being falsely accused of purpose-washing in the absence of any uniform standards. Huge compliance costs for third-party verification and detailed disclosure requirements are compounded by this, which may discourage small and first-time issuers from participating because they often lack the infrastructure and budget to meet these requirements. Additionally, the ESG-rating market is highly fragmented and opaque, which makes it difficult for investors to evaluate and contrast the issuances across sectors. Investor confidence is further undermined by a lack of standard evaluation tools and unclear information on impact metrics.

    Although some critics have expressed concerns that the introduction of rigid taxonomies and standard KPIs may hinder innovation, and possibly put small and regional issuers at a disadvantage. Though valid, these concerns do not negate the broader need for uniformity in general. The same could be addressed through a phased implementation of the framework, starting with voluntary compliance and then gradually moving towards mandatory requirements. Similarly, inference can be drawn from the EU’s experience with the Green Taxonomy, which demonstrated that proportionality and standardization can go hand-in-hand.

    PROPOSED REFORMS TO STRENGTHEN THE FRAMEWORK

    However, this is only the beginning, and there is scope to counter these obstacles and to turn them into an opportunity to strengthen the ESG Finance landscape in India by learning from global best practices and tailoring them to suit India’s development needs. SEBI should move beyond international standards and introduce an India-specific ESG taxonomy tailored to national priorities and SDG commitments. This could draw inspiration from the EU Green Taxonomy but be adapted for India’s socio-economic development. For this, SEBI should promote the use of sector-specific templates and model KPIs to enable comparison without compromising local relevance. Though the disclosure burden is high and compliance requirements are complex, it must be noted that these are essential to eliminate the misuse of ESG labelling or purpose washing and ensure genuine impact is made. Leveraging public infrastructure and targeted support from DFIs like NABARD, SIDBI, etc., should be sought to alleviate this burden. Moreover, coalitions of the private sector, like the Confederation of Indian Industries (CII) and the Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry (FICCI), can assist in ESG-related capacity building and provide technical and financial support.

    A central ESG oversight body under SEBI should be created to monitor disclosure, enforce accountability, ensure market discipline, and serve as an institutional safeguard for all the different stakeholders. Penalties for non-compliance should be clearly articulated to deter purpose-washing. Credit rating agencies must be mandated to follow a uniform ESG-scoring criterion. Additionally, integrating the ESG Bond market with blockchain technology and the smart contract system can enhance transparency and automate compliance by tracking the use of proceeds in real-time.

    CONCLUSION

    The framework is a timely step in aligning the Indian financial market with the UN SDGs and introduces baseline standards, opening a pathway for credible ESG capital mobilization. While it is built on good intent, this will all be meaningful when it is backed by strong enforcement and accountability mechanisms that go beyond mere disclosure formalities. The current framework leaves several gaps that require further attention. For India to become a global hub for sustainable financing, its ESG regulatory infrastructure must be built on pillars of credible enforcement, integrity, real impact, and alignment with sustainable principles.

  • The Insolvency Blind Spot: Why India Needs a Tailored Resolution Framework for Cooperative Banks

    The Insolvency Blind Spot: Why India Needs a Tailored Resolution Framework for Cooperative Banks

    SOMESH RAI, FIFTH- YEAR STUDENT AT DBRANLU, SONEPAT

    INTRODUCTION

    The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (‘IBC’) was brought in the year 2016. The IBC brought in speed, certainty, and transparency, and for a while, it seemed that India had finally bridged the gaps in its insolvency regime. However, the events of 2020 exposed a critical blind spot in this seemingly comprehensive framework. Even as the IBC extended its ambit to corporate entities, partnerships, and individuals, cooperative banks, an important financial institution and integral part of India’s credit system, remained outside its scope. The fall of the Punjab & Maharashtra Cooperative Bank revealed the blind spot of IBC and its inadequacy to deal with the insolvency of cooperative banks, leaving depositors highly vulnerable and regulators constrained. The problem is not only historical but a persistent threat, underscored by more recent incidents of co-operative banks like the New India Co-operative Bank in early 2025. The core blind spot remains in the failure of a framework to handle the failure of co-operative bank is still dangerously absent.

    COOPERATIVE BANKS IN INDIA

    Cooperative Banks are community-driven financial institutions that work on a democratic principle different from commercial banks. Commercial banks, which are typically incorporated under the Companies Act, 2013, are ideally profit-driven enterprises. They are financial institutions that are owned by shareholders, managed by professionals, and driven by a primary objective, which is maximizing the profit for their investors. At their core, commercial and cooperative banks are built on different philosophies.

    The fundamental difference lies in who holds the power. While commercial banks are owned by shareholders, cooperative banks are owned and managed by their members, who control the institution through a democratic process based on the “one person, one vote” principle. This democratic governance, where members elect their own board of directors, is the cornerstone of the cooperative model.

    THE TWO CAPTAIN SHIP

    Imagine a single ship with two captains steering it, each with their own set of maps and responsibilities. This is, how a cooperative bank is regulated. The two captains here are the Reserve Bank of India (‘RBI’) and the Registrar of Cooperative Societies (‘RCS’). The RBI is responsible for the bank’s “banking and financial” functions. This includes issuing licenses to a new cooperative bank under Section 22 of the Banking Regulation Act 1949, setting prudential norms like the capital to risk-weighted asset ratio and non-performing asset classification, and regulating its core banking operations under the Banking Regulation Act, 1949. RCS is a state-level authority (or central, for multi-state societies) that governs the bank’s “cooperative” character. The RCS is in charge of incorporation, registration, management, board elections, and, most critically, the audit and liquidation under Section 86 of the Multi State Cooperative Societies Act, 2002, (or winding up) of the society under the respective State Cooperative Societies Act. Cooperative Banks are formed either under acts of the state legislature, depending on their coverage in a state, or under the Multi-State Cooperative Societies Act of 2002, an act of the Parliament of India, if they provide their services in multiple states. The Multi-State Cooperative Societies Act governs the cooperative character of banks. In contrast, the Banking Regulation Act, 1949, grants the Reserve Bank of India certain powers related to the financial functioning of banks.

    This bizarre split originates from the Constitution of India itself. Under the Union List, the Central Government has exclusive power to legislate on “Banking” as per Entry 45, List I. In contrast, under the State List, the state governments have power over “Co-operative societies” as per Entry 32, List II. This constitutional division is the legal bedrock of the dual control problem.

    This split establishes a no-man’s land when it comes to regulatory oversight, giving a chance for malpractices to occur. The Punjab & Maharashtra Cooperative Bank crisis is the textbook example of this two-captain system failing catastrophically. This meant that the RBI, the country’s financial watchdog, could see the major red flags in PMC’s lending practices through its false balance sheets and fake entries showing NPA’s as standard assets But even when it spotted these problems, its hands were tied. Under the Banking Regulation Act of 1949, it simply didn’t have the direct power to punish the managers responsible for the fraud.  

    On the other hand, there was the Registrar of Cooperative Societies. This was the authority in charge of the bank’s management and board, but they often lacked the specialized financial expertise to really understand the complex risks involved in modern banking. This created a perfect catastrophe. PMC’s board, which answered mainly to the registrar, was able to manipulate records and hide its massive, fraudulent exposure to Housing Development & Infrastructure Limited for years, knowing that no single authority had complete and effective oversight. It was a classic case of shared responsibility becoming no one’s responsibility, where each regulator could just assume the other was watching, allowing the fraud to grow unchecked until the bank imploded.

    THE INSOLVENCY BLINDSPOT

    When any big company in India goes down, we immediately hear three letters: IBC. The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, is our country’s modern and powerful tool for addressing corporate failure. So, when a cooperative bank fails, the most logical question is, why can’t we just use the IBC?

    The answer is buried in the legal provisions of the IBC itself, and it is the primary reason cooperative bank depositors are left vulnerable. IBC’s main tool is the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process initiated against a “corporate debtor“.

    This is where the legal trail begins-

    1. Who is a “Corporate Debtor”? The IBC defines it under section 3(8) as a as a “corporate person” who owes a debt to someone.
    2. Who is a “Corporate Person”? Under Section 3(7) of the IBC, it is defined as a “corporate person” as a company, a Limited Liability Partnership (LLP), or any other body with limited liability explicitly excluding any financial service provider.
    3. What is a “Financial Service Provider”? The IBC then defines a “financial service provider” in Section 3(17) as any entity engaged in the business of providing “financial services” under a license from a financial sector regulator. The definition of “financial services” in Section 3(16) is broad and includes activities like “accepting of deposits”.

    A cooperative bank, by its very nature, accepts deposits from the public and is partially regulated by the RBI. This makes it a “financial service provider” under the IBC’s definition. Because financial service providers are excluded from the definition of a “corporate person,” hence a cooperative bank is not considered a “corporate debtor.” Therefore, the entire machinery of the IBC, designed for swift and efficient resolution, cannot be applied to it, which creates a legal loophole, a blind spot of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016.

    It was a deliberate attempt by The Bankruptcy Law Reforms Committee, which drafted the IBC, to keep the financial institutions out of the standard Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process(‘CIRP’) for particular reasons, such as

    1. Systemic Risk: A bank is deeply interconnected with the rest of the financial system. Its failure can trigger a domino effect, causing a “contagion” that could destabilize other healthy institutions and the economy as a whole.
    2. Nature of Creditors: The creditors of a bank are thousands, sometimes millions, of ordinary depositors whose life savings are at stake unlike commercial creditors. A standard insolvency process is not designed to handle this kind of widespread public impact.
    3. Need for a Specialized Framework: Due to these unique risks, lawmakers believed that financial firms required their own specialized framework for resolution. Section 227 of the IBC empowers the union government to create special rules for the insolvency of financial service providers.

    The problem is that while the government did use this power to notify a special framework for certain large Non-Banking Financial Companies, cooperative banks were left out. They were excluded from the primary IBC process but were never included in a viable, alternative one. They were left stranded in a legal grey zone, subject only to the old, slow, and inefficient winding-up processes under the control of State Registrars. This deliberate, yet incomplete, legislative action is the ultimate reason why the failure of a cooperative bank becomes a prolonged nightmare for its depositors.

    FIXING THE BLIND SPOT: IS THERE A WAY FORWARD?

    The 2020 amendment to the Banking Regulation Act was a good first step, but it didn’t go far enough. While it tightened the rules to help prevent future failures, it left the fundamental insolvency gap wide open. The real nightmare for depositors isn’t just a bank failing but the broken, slow-motion, and completely uncertain resolution process that follows. Recognizing this, the RBI constituted an Expert Committee on Urban Co-operative Banks, chaired by former Deputy Governor N. S. Vishwanathan. Its key recommendations included A Four-Tiered Regulatory Framework The idea was to classify Urban Cooperative Banks into four different tiers based on the size of their deposits. It recommended the creation of a national-level apex body for Urban Cooperative Banks, now established as the National Urban Co-operative Finance and Development Corporation (‘NUCFDC’) to provide capital, liquidity support, technological infrastructure, and fund management services.

    Nevertheless, even these vital reforms do not fix the insolvency blind spot. They are a preventative medicine, and not a surgical process. They aim to keep the patient healthy but offer no new procedure if the patient suffers a catastrophic failure.

    The ultimate solution must be legislative. The government needs to either amend the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code to bring cooperative banks under a special, tailored version of the CIRP or create an entirely new, parallel resolution regime for them. The “two captain ship” must now be decommissioned and a new law must establish a single, empowered resolution authority. The RBI can be the sole authority with all financial oversight, supervision and resolution power vested in it limiting RCS to its cooperative governance. This new framework must be time-bound unlike the traditional slow liquidation process to both preserve the bank and protect depositors. A tier-based framework should be brought in where smaller banks in tier 1 should have a simplified process for swift amalgamation or mandatory payout of insured deposits within 15-20 days. And for larger banks a bridge bank can be established to ensure uninterrupted service to depositors during the liquidation process. Further in cases where a cooperative bank is showing signs of financial distress (but is not yet collapsed), the RBI could trigger a “Supervised resolution period.” During this time, the banks management will be statutorily required to prepare a pre-packaged merger or sale plan with a healthy institution like the pre-packed resolution process given for MSMEs under IBC. If the bank’s health deteriorates past a certain point, this pre-approved plan can be activated instantly which will prevent the post collapse chaos. Until these legal loophole in the IBC are closed, the money of millions of Indians will remain exposed to the very paradox that brought PMC Bank to its knees, the paradox of a bank that is not entirely a bank when it matters most.

  • Expanding The Meaning of Sufficient Cause under Section 58 (1)

    Expanding The Meaning of Sufficient Cause under Section 58 (1)

    BY PRIYAM MITRA, THIRD- YEAR STUDENT AT NLSIU, BANGALORE

    INTRODUCTION

    Through judicial pronouncements and legislative clarifications, the seemingly unbridled power of free transferability of public companies is constrained by two clauses: one stating that any contract between two or more persons would be enforceable as a contract (proviso to Section 58(2)) and; secondly, the public company may refuse to register this transfer of shares by showing sufficient cause (Section 58(4)).

    There is considerable literature on why employee stock option schemes are introduced in various different ways. Specifically in firms where there are capital constraints, which is often the case in unlisted public companies, these strategies are often deployed for the purposes of “employee retention and sorting”. It is also well established that after the lock-in period of these schemes, these shares are to be treated in the same way as other equity shares; this means that for public companies this would lead to principles of free transferability being applicable thereon upon such shares given to employees.

    It is the argument of the paper that in this context, the meaning given to the term “sufficient cause” under section 58(4) must be read in an expansive manner so as to cover instances where allowing further transfer of these allotted shares would be perverse to the interests of the company. To do this, the NCLAT judgement of Synthite Industries Limited v. M/s Plant Lipids Ltd. (2018), which emphasises directors’ duties under Section 166(2) would be relied on.

    FOUNDATIONS OF EMPLOYEE STOCK OPTION PROGRAMS AND POSSIBLE ROADBLOCKS

    A. Reasons for ESOP Schemes

    As mentioned before, there has been a growing trend in industries where rather than providing incentives to employees to work, ESOPs are used for sorting and selection of those who are optimistic about the future of the company. This is why it makes sense for even public companies to get the benefit of ESOPs even though traditionally there should have been no restrictions on the transferability of public company shares. However, what is often overlooked in analysis is then how do those who receive these options exercise them and whether these transactions can be restricted in view of other important consideration as out lined later (namely whether there is sufficient cause to believe that the transfer would result in harming the interest of all shareholders).

    B. Nominee Directors

    Before the enactment of the Company Act 2013, there had been academic concerns expressed with respect to independent directors receiving stock options. The reason for this was rooted in the fact that independent directors, by the nature of their role, had to be independent of any pecuniary interest in order to perform their function. Stock options in this context would dampen this independence and rightfully, Indian law averted this error through the SEBI (Share Based Employee Benefits) Regulations, 2014. The rules define “employees” as explicitly not including “independent directors” (Rule 2(1)(f)(ii)).

    However, inadvertently, the category of nominee directors has been categorically excluded from the category of independent directors under Section 149(6) of the Companies Act, 2013, and this means that they are covered under the definition of employee for the purpose of stock option schemes. To understand why this is a possible roadblock to achieving the purpose of stock option schemes, the peculiar role of nominee directors has to be analysed.

    Nominee directors have become a regular part in corporate structures in India. Due to them owing their duty to the nominator but sitting on the board of directors. There is always a speckle of concerns related to conflict of interest. Indeed, it has been observed in decisions that in a situation where these two interests are at conflict, they would be placed in an “impossible position”. Coming back to why this is an issue in the context of ESOPs, it must be understood that while the ESOPs cannot be transferred to any third party (the option to buy (Rule 9)), the shares issued to nominee directors pursuant to ESOPs, however, may be transferred to the nominating institutions. This conspicuously places the nominee directors in such a position where the nominating institutions may meddle in the functioning of these directors pushing for transfer of these lucrative shares.

    There could be an argument that there is a solution already implicit in the rules. That is, the companies may choose any period as the lock-in period (the period during which these shares cannot be transferred). However, unlike the provisions on sweat equity (3 years), there is no such minimum lock-in period prescribed. It is difficult for companies to deploy one single lock-in period for all kinds of employee and having such a strict period would be prejudicial to the employees’ interests. Therefore, it is argued, in exceptional circumstances Section 58(4) must be used to restrict transactions on a case-to-case basis.

    SUFFICIENT CAUSE UNDER 58(4)

    To solve the issues identified in the previous section, this paper proposes an expansive reading of sufficient cause under Section 58(4) as a possible solution. To understand the contemporary legal position, analysis must start from before the introduction of the Companies Act in 2013. Section 58(4) of the 2013 Act clarifies the position established by Section 111A of the Companies Act, 1956. Section 111A (3) provided an exhaustive list of instances (contravention of and law in India) wherein such refusal would be upheld. It was consistently held by the Courts that sufficient cause had to be read in this narrow manner.

    The recent line of cases starting from Mackintosh Burns v. Sarkar and Chowdhury Enterprises, recognise the wider ambit of sufficient cause under the Companies Act 2013. Mackintosh’s reasoning was based on simple facts of a competitor trying to buy shares in a company, a simple case of conflict of interest, hence, the Supreme Court concluded that at least in such cases, sufficient cause would entail something more than mere contravention of law. Synthite goes further and provides more robust reasoning even though the fact scenario here was very similar to Mackintosh. The court accepts the appellants arguments and holds the wisdom of the Board of Directors in high regard by forming a link between their fiduciary duty (Section 166(2)) to act in a bonafide manner and advance the company’s interests, to their refusal of registration of transfer (under Section 58(4)) (paras [10],[16],[22]). This effectively means that their refusal to register shares in this case was deemed reasonable because the board acted in a bonafide manner to advance the interests of the shareholders.

    In fact, a recent case heard by the Delhi High Court in Phenil Sugars Ltd. v Laxmi Gupta, was decided in a similar vein as that of Synthite (though the NCLT decision is not cited) wherein the Court held that registration of shares can be restricted where:

    “[27]There is an apprehension that the transfer is not in the best interest of the company and all its stakeholders including the shareholders;

    ii. The said apprehension is reasonable and there is material on record to support the apprehension.”

    The case is a monumental step forward. Till now, the cases primarily dealt with the transfer being done to a competing company, however, in this case, the court considered the refusal to be reasonable as the transferees had a history of meddling in the corporate affairs of the company through constant complaints. On the twin test laid down, the High Court considered the cause to be sufficient.                                                                                           

    CONCLUSION: RESTRICTING TRANSFER OF ESOP SHARES THROUGH SECTION 58(4)

    Realising the purpose behind ESOPs, that is, rewarding and more importantly retaining employees and shares within the company, leads to the conclusion that the board must be given the power to refuse registration of transfer. This is solidified by the emerging jurisprudence in India with respect to the ambit of sufficient cause under Section 58. It is argued that this determination would vary greatly with the unique facts and circumstances of each case.

    In case of nominee directors transferring the shares to their nominating institutions, one must look at the standard put forth by Synthite (invoking the directors’ fiduciary duty in making this decision)and the courts should not be constrained by the restrictive interpretation that sufficient cause would exist only when shares are transferred to competing companies (Phenil Sugars). It must be accepted that “deferring to the Board’s wisdom” would surely encompass such situations where a transfer would defeat the purpose of ESOPs and indirectly derogate the interests of all stakeholders. If nominee directors transfer shares to their nominating company, then they would be put in a precarious situation caught in between conflicts on interests.

    However, this does not mean that all ESOP receivers would be estopped from transferring their shares, this determination has to be made considering all the terms of the ESOP and the relationship that the company shares with the employee. What this paper has argued is that sufficient clause has to be interpreted in a wide way so as to restrict any transaction that would be prejudicial to the interests of all shareholders. Transfer of ESOP shares (usually) at a lower price needs to be maintained within the company and its employees, specifically when it is at a nascent stage; this should surely constitute sufficient cause.

  • India’s Basel III Paradox: Failure of Mechanics Not Morals

    India’s Basel III Paradox: Failure of Mechanics Not Morals

    BY SMARAK SAMAL, LL.M STUDENT AT NLSIU, BANGALORE

    INTRODUCTION

    It is significant to write down a paradox that openly and dauntingly exists in the Indian banking system, and it should not be reduced to a conflict between strict regulations and lax implementation. There have been multiple occurrences in the Indian system, where white-collar actors have been able to get around the procedural flaws in banking regulations without having to go for deceptive techniques because these safety nets work well as a tool. Yes Bank, Infrastructure Leasing & Financial Services (‘IL&FS’), and Punjab National Bank’s (‘PNB’) crises are indications that they were not just typical governance failures but rather savage attacks on particular systemic underpinnings. The article’s main focus is the willful breach of Basel III regulations, which clarifies topics outside the typical crisis history and improves comprehension of system convergence. To give certain clarity, Basel III relies on 3 core Pillars. Pillar 1 ensures that banks have sufficient capital to absorb market, credit and management risks and hence sets up minimum capital requirements. Whereas supervisory guidance compelling regulators to measure bank’s internal risk control mechanisms and inducing concrete steps when defaults are recognized are acknowledged in Pillar 2. Lastly, Pillar 3 integrates market discipline by warranting public disclosures, permitting market participants and investors to judge a bank’s risk portfolio.

    PNB: THE CIRCUMVENTION OF PILLAR 1 OPERATIONAL RISK CAPITAL

    To start with the PNB scam, which was made possible by Letters of Undertaking (‘LoUs’), was both dramatic and a prime example of the inherent flaws in the Basel III methodology. The Basic Indicator Approach (‘BIA’) is being used by Indian banks to model operational risk in capitalisation. According to the BIA, banks must have capital that is equivalent to 15% of their average gross earnings over the previous three years.The true deception of the scheme lay in avoiding this exact calculation.

    Basically, the fabricated LoUs were exchanged through the Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication (‘SWIFT’) mechanism but never really entered into PNB’s Core Banking Solutions (‘CBS’). Since the official books of the bank were never made aware of these transactions, they never fed into the gross-income figure upon which the BIA is calculated.Thus, PNB’s reported operational-risk capital appeared adequate on paper but was derived from data that unobtrusively sidestepped multi-billion-dollar exposure. Theoretically, there was nothing technically wrong with the BIA formula except that its inputs were corrupted, rendering the compliance meaningless.

    This indicates that Pillar 1’s strict capital ratios come into play only when the bank’s data generation processes are maintained rigorously. The collapse of Pillar 2 calls for Supervisory and Evaluation Process (‘SREP’), which is marked at this juncture. Since 2016, the Reserve Bank of India has issued warnings regarding the dangers of handling SWIFT outside of the CBS.These cautions went unheeded and hence, PNB’s non-compliant “compliance reports” were approved during inspections.  This further suggests that, Pillar 2 supervision can’t be a mere ministerial exercise. It requires digging into the technical details of the Bank’s system since even one missing integration can render the entire Pillar 1 capital framework useless.

    IL&FS: SUBVERTING PILLAR 1 CREDIT RISK VIA A CORRUPTED PILLAR 3

    On the other side, the crisis of IL&FS highlights how  failure in market discipline can directly poison the foundation of Pillar-1’s credit risk calculation. The failure in market discipline can be attributed to violation Pillar 3. Referring to the Basel III Standardised Approach, rating a corporate borrower according to its external credit rating enables Indian banks to establish the corresponding risk weight. For instance, a borrower with a credit rating of “AAA” only attracts a risk weight of 20 percent, and thus, a bank is only required to set aside a tiny amount of capital to cover such an exposure. With an unmanageable debt load exceeding ₹91,000 crore in origin, IL&FS maintained the highly sought-after “AAA” rating from the establishment of Indian rating agencies till a few weeks prior to its default. In fact, the agencies damaged all banks holding IL&FS assets since they failed to raise an alarm in their purported Pillar 3 role of market discipline. The Standardised Approach forced lenders to classify what was effectively a ticking time bomb as a low-risk asset, making their reported capital adequacy levels misleading and needless.

    The distinctive lesson is that the credibility of credit rating organisations closely correlates with the effectiveness of a standardised methodology. In addition to the active supervision of rating agencies and knowledge of conflicts of interest inherent in the issuer-pays model, the self-correcting nature of market forces is a myth. In the absence of trustworthy ratings, Pillar 1’s capital calculations will be a wasteful exercise that will give the financial system a false sense of security.

    YES BANK: GAMING CREDIT RISK NORMS THROUGH ASSET MISCLASSIFICATION

    The bedrock of credit risk management’s honest asset classification was hit hard by the Yes Bank debacle. Evergreening, or lending to problematic borrowers to pay off the interest on past-due obligations, was the fundamental strategy used by the bank. According to the RBI’s Prudential Norms on Income Recognition, Asset Classification, and Provisioning (‘IRAC’), any loan that is past due by more than ninety days must be recorded as a non-performing asset (‘NPA’).

    The connection to Basel III is rather straightforward. The classification of a loan determines the risk weight that is allocated to it under Pillar 1. The risk weight of a corporate loan is typically 100%. However, the risk weight rises to 150 percent and the provision requirements dramatically increase resulting in poor NPA levels. Yes Bank overstated its capital adequacy ratio and negated the need for the Pillar 1 framework by concealing problematic loans under a “standard” classification, understating both its provisioning and its Risk-Weighted Assets (‘RWAs’).

    This only adds to the troubles past this case because under the regulator’s Pillar 2 supervision, the bank showed massive NPA divergences, meaning banks’ reported bad loans and practically a margin higher by regulators. In FY19, as per RBI’s report the gross NPA stood at Rs.11,159 Crore against the declared Rs.7,882 Crore, revealing glaring disparity of 41%. However, strong action from the central bank was delayed, allowing CEO Rana Kapoor’s evergreening to become systemic. Hence, after the RBI finally stepped in, it forced his resignation and arranged the rescue.

    The takeaway is straightforward, though details concerning the classification of assets create credit risk and capital rules. The supervisors who willfully ignore the innocent misreporting don’t simply look the other way; they knowingly participate in the manipulation of Basel requirements, pushing systemic risk under the cover of compliance.

    THE INEFFECTIVE LEGAL BACKSTOP

    When regulation and supervision collapse, the legal system is supposed to provide the last remedy, but in Indian banking the legal backstop has not been able to fulfil this role effectively. The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 was designed to give time-bound resolution and has indeed changed promoter behaviour, but in practice most cases have crossed statutory deadlines, and by the time resolution occurs, the asset value is already diminished. The haircut problem therefore reflects not the defect of IBC alone but the failure of governance and supervision before insolvency. Nevertheless, law as a mechanism of providing remedy, loses its efficacy when procedural timelines are disregarded and asset value is diminished.

    The legal backstop that would have been the ultimate means of holding to account has turned out to be the weakest link. Instead of introducing speed of action, it introduces filters of postponement and ambiguity. Systematic risks continue to be exist even with Basel III plus in action due to lack of effective deterrence which results in further intensifying the paradox and calling for effective solutions.

    These financial crises highlight the necessity to strengthen the Basel Pillars through structural, technological and supervisory reforms. To prevent breakdown of Pillar 1 operational risk safeguards, regulators shall make any manipulation technologically undoable by compulsory, forensic system-integration audits under the RBI’s Pillar 2 ‘SREP’. It will further enable Straight Through Processing (‘STP’) between SWIFT and CBS, supported by verifiable automated reconciliation and alerts for accurate entries. Failure of Pillar 3 market discipline and disputes in Credit Rating System (‘CRA’) was exposed in IL&FS crisis and situations like this could be avoided if RBI adopts a supervisory veto by imposing higher risk weights when external ratings hide stress. Further, by enforcing penalties on auditors and CRA’s for negligence to secure integrity and accountability implementation.

    CONCLUSION: FORGING A CULTURE OF CONSEQUENCE

    The study is also looking at the main bank frauds from the Basel III perspective, within the framework of an analytical grouping with a goal at its limits. In the end, they show that the primary flaw in the Indian banking system is not laws or regulations that take on complicated shapes, but rather how they are applied. This seems to be a recurring theme: the supervisory review in Pillar 2, as covered in more detail in this section, has not adequately evaluated the procedural integrity of Pillar 1 and Pillar 3 processes. Capital ratios are regarded as final measures since they focus entirely on quality of inputs such as credit ratings, asset classification and transactional data acting as key quantitative benchmarks and headline indicators.

    India’s Basel paradox therefore is not about rules but about accountability. It is only when consequence is enforced swiftly and firmly that Basel norms can function as real protection rather than a symbolic framework. Cultivating this culture of consequence is essential if the integrity of the financial system is to be preserved.

    In the long run, this involves more than just anticipating when the banks will file their compliance reports. Supervisory oversight must shift to real time analytics from retrospective assessment, alerting instant identification of evergreening and misclassification through integrated monitoring mechanism .

    The integrity of the systems themselves as well as the integrity of the gatekeepers engaged need to be examined more thoroughly. Bank audits with a technological bent, credit rating agencies’ accountability, and the heightened examination of the misclassified asset class. Systemic integrity will be a regulatory fantasy but not an institutional reality unless India adopts the mechanical foundations of the Basel framework.

  • The Digital Dilemma: Reimagining Independent Directors’ Liability under Companies Act, 2013

    The Digital Dilemma: Reimagining Independent Directors’ Liability under Companies Act, 2013

    BY SVASTIKA KHANDELWAL, THIRD- YEAR STUDENT AT NLSIU, BANGALORE

    INTRODUCTION

    The 2025 breach compromising the personal data of 8.4 million users of Zoomcar underscores the growing prevalence of digital risks within corporate governance. Such incidents raise pressing concerns regarding the oversight obligations of boards, particularly independent directors (‘IDs‘), and call for a critical examination of S.149(12), Companies Act, 2013 (‘the Act’), which limits ID liability to instances where acts of omission or commission by a company occurs with their knowledge, attributable through board processes and with their consent or connivance, or where they have not acted diligently.

    This piece argues that S.149(12) has not kept pace with the digital transformation of corporate operations and requires legislative reform to account for the dual challenges of digitalisation: the increasing integration of digital communication in corporate operations, and its growing impact on digital corporate governance failures like data breaches and cybersecurity lapses.

    Firstly, the piece traces the evolution of the IDs’ liability regime. Further, it examines the knowledge and consent test under the first part of S.149(12), arguing it fails to address accountability challenges in the digital-era. Subsequently, it analyses the diligence test as a more appropriate standard for ensuring meaningful oversight.  Finally, the article explores how S.149(12) can be expanded to effectively tackle the liability of IDs for digital governance failures.

    UNDERSTANDING S.149(12) OF THE ACT: SCOPE AND DEVELOPMENT

    In India, the emergence of ID has evolved in response to its ‘insider model’ of corporate shareholding, where promoter-driven concentrated ownership resulted in tensions between the majority and minority shareholders. This necessitated safeguards for minority shareholders and independent oversight of management. Before the 2013 Act, the duties of directors were shaped by general fiduciary principles rooted in common law. This lacked the specificity to address the majority-minority shareholder conflict effectively. A regulatory milestone came when SEBI introduced Clause 49, Listing Agreement 2000, requiring listed companies to appoint IDs. However, it offered limited guidance on the functions and stakeholder interests these directors were expected to protect. A more detailed approach was followed in the 2013 Act, which explicitly defined the role of IDs in S.149(6), S.149(12), and Schedule IV. This marked a transition from treating IDs as general fiduciaries to assigning them a more distinct role. IDs facilitate information symmetry and unbiased decision-making. Furthermore, they are essential for raising concerns about unethical behaviour or breaches of the company’s code of conduct. Significantly, they must safeguard the interests of all stakeholders, especially minority shareholders. By staying independent and objective, they help the board make informed decisions.

    This article focuses on S.149(12) of the Act, which contains two grounds for holding IDs liable. First, if the company’s actions occurred with the ID’s knowledge and consent or connivance, provided such knowledge must be linked to board processes. Secondly, liability arises due to the lack of diligence. Since the provision uses “or,” both grounds function independently; failing either can attract liability. While knowledge must relate to board proceedings, the duty of diligence extends beyond this. It is an autonomous and proactive duty, not confined to board discussions.

    REASSESSING THE KNOWLEDGE AND CONSENT TEST

    The piece argues that S.149(12)’s knowledge and consent standard is inadequate in the context of digital governance, where risks emerge rapidly and information is frequently acquired through digital channels.

    Firstly, courts have tended to apply S.149(12) narrowly, often solely focusing on the knowledge and consent test. They fail to go a step further to assess the duty of diligence. This incomplete approach weakens accountability and overlooks a key aspect of the provision. This narrow interpretation was evident in  Global Infratech, where the IDs were cleared of liability due to insufficient evidence indicating their participation in board proceedings. Interestingly, while SEBI held executive directors to a standard of diligence and caution, it imposed no such obligation on IDs. The decision emphasised that an ID can escape liability solely on the ground of not having knowledge acquired through board processes, without demonstrating that he exercised diligence by actively seeking relevant information. A similar restricted interpretation was evident in the Karvy decision, where SEBI absolved IDs of liability as they had not been informed of ongoing violations in board meetings, without addressing their duty to proactively seek such information through due diligence.

    Further concern arises from the judiciary’s conflation of the knowledge test with involvement in day-to-day functioning. In MPS Infotecnics and Swam Software, IDs were not held liable because they were not involved in the day-to-day affairs of the company. This finding was grounded in the belief that the ID lacked knowledge of the wrongdoing. Such a reasoning exposes a critical flaw in the knowledge test, which lies in treating an ID’s absence from daily affairs as proof that they were unaware of any misconduct, thereby diluting the ID’s duty to exercise informed oversight over core strategic decisions and high‑risk domains, including cybersecurity.

    This interpretation is especially problematic in view of digital governance failures. Various grave catastrophic corporate risks like data breaches and ransomware attacks arise from routine technological processes. Storing user data, updating software, and managing cybersecurity are daily activities that are central to a company’s operations and survival. The “day-to-day functioning” standard creates a perilous loophole. It allows an ID to escape liability by remaining willfully ignorant of the company’s most critical area of risk. An ID can simply claim they lacked “knowledge” of a cybersecurity flaw because it was part of “day-to-day” IT work. Thus, this piece argues that the judiciary’s narrow reading of S.149(12), which applies only the knowledge test, is inadequate in the digital domain. IDs need not be technology experts. Still, they must ask the right questions, identify red flags and ensure appropriate governance mechanisms are in place, including cybersecurity, thus reinforcing the need to apply the diligence test more robustly.

    Another shortcoming of this test is its over-reliance on attributing ID’s knowledge only to matters in formal board processes. In the digital era, this approach overlooks the reality that board decision-making and oversight increasingly occur outside the confines of scheduled meetings. The integration of real-time digital communication channels such as Gmail and WhatsApp highlights crucial gaps. It creates an evidentiary vacuum, since highly probative indications of negligence, like the dismissal of a whistleblower’s alert or a decision to ignore a cybersecurity risk, may be discussed within informal digital communications. Limiting knowledge to board meetings enables plausible deniability. IDs may engage in and even influence critical decisions through private digital channels, omit these discussions from the official record, and later easily escape liability under the knowledge standard, despite having complete awareness of the wrongdoing. Cyber crises unfold without warning, long before the next board meeting is convened. Their rapidity and opacity require IDs to act through digital channels. The exclusion of these communications from the liability framework offers an easy shield from responsibility.

    Compounding this issue, the requirement of “consent or connivance” fails to capture digital corporate environment nuances. Consent is no longer limited to clear, documented paper trails, but is often expressed by various digital cues in businesses. A “thumbs up” emoji in a WhatsApp group could signal agreement, acknowledgement, or simply receipt, therefore giving IDs room to deny intent and escape liability. This problem is exacerbated by end-to-end encryption and disappearing messages features on some instant-messaging applications. It allows erasing potential evidence. Moreover, connivance or covert cooperation can now take subtler digital forms, like an ID editing a cloud-sharing Google Document, replacing “imminent risk” with “need routine system check” in an audit report, intentionally downplaying a serious breach warning. The current wording of the provision is silent on whether this would make an ID accountable.

    Therefore, it is evident that the knowledge and consent test is insufficient in the face of pervasive digitalisation and warrants a wider interpretation in light of the foregoing developments in corporate operations.

    THE DILIGENCE TEST: A STRONGER STANDARD

    While ID liability has often been confined to the narrow ‘knowledge test,’ SEBI’s order in Manpasand Beverages Ltd. reasserts the importance of diligence. On 30 April 2024, SEBI held the company’s IDs responsible, noting that although they claimed a lack of access to vital documents, they made no effort to obtain them. This ruling signals a renewed commitment to holding directors accountable beyond mere knowledge.

    This is beneficial in the context of digital governance failures, as the diligence test provides a stronger framework for ensuring accountability; it imposes an obligation on IDs, as highlighted in Edserv Soft systems, where it was observed that due diligence requires questioning irregular transactions and following up persistently with uncooperative management. The Bombay Dyeing case held that IDs in audit committees are expected to question the presented information and actively uncover irregularities, even if deliberately hidden. It emphasised that IDs must question accuracy and demand clarity without relying solely on surface-level disclosures. The same heightened duty must apply to digital governance, where concealed cyber risks like breaches or ransomware pose equally serious threats and require equally proactive investigation.

    Therefore, the diligence test is more effective for tackling digital corporate governance failures as it replaces passive awareness with active oversight. Since these digital threats often remain hidden until too late, waiting for information is insufficient. It is not a tool for operational meddling but for high-level strategic scrutiny, like questioning a cybersecurity budget marked below industry benchmarks for a data-intensive organisation.

    CONCLUSION: CHARTING THE WAY FORWARD

    As shown, S.149(12) of the Act, in its current form, appears ill-equipped to tackle the realities of digital corporate governance failures. This concern may be addressed through an evolved interpretation of the existing framework, potentially supplemented by a clarificatory Explanation to S.149(12), specifically tailored to digital threats.

     A logical starting point for this evolution is a broader reading of “knowledge.” It can be expanded to include not only information attributable to formal board meetings but also any material information communicated to, or reasonably accessible by, the ID through any mode, including digital means. Additionally, a rebuttable presumption of “consent or connivance” can be inserted where IDs, after gaining such knowledge, fail to record objection or dissent within a reasonable time, especially when the matter involves a material risk to the company or a breach of law. This approach does not set a high threshold; it merely shifts the onus and strengthens timely oversight, encouraging IDs to speak up. Given the potential severity of cyberattacks, such an approach aligns with the need for heightened vigilance in digital governance.

    Further, the timeless duty of due diligence may be interpreted to include a baseline level of digital literacy. While they need not be technology professionals, they must understand enough to ask relevant questions and assess whether management has adequately addressed digital risks. Without this foundational competence, IDs cannot meaningfully engage with cybersecurity, data governance, etc, leaving oversight dangerously superficial.  Embedding this requirement under S.149(12) makes it a statutory duty, ensuring that failure to acquire or apply such skills can directly trigger liability. In the modern corporate landscape, technology is not optional; rather, essential and enduring. Therefore, IDs must be equipped to fulfil their duties in this environment.