A Comparative Analysis of Corporate Governance Practices in the Post-Pandemic World in India

The COVID-19 pandemic has fundamentally reshaped the global economic landscape, with significant implications for corporate governance. This article examines the potential convergence or divergence of corporate governance practices in India in the post-pandemic era. It analyses how the pandemic has challenged existing governance frameworks and explores potential areas of reform. The article further delves into relevant case laws to understand judicial interpretation and its influence on evolving governance practices. Finally, it assesses the potential impact of global trends and international best practices on Indian corporate governance.


Corporate governance refers to the framework of rules, processes, and relationships by which businesses are regulated, controlled, and held accountable. The pandemic exposed vulnerabilities in existing governance models, particularly regarding risk management, stakeholder engagement, and business continuity planning. This article investigates whether these challenges will lead to a convergence of Indian corporate governance practices with international best practices or a divergence driven by domestic socio-economic factors.

The Pandemic’s Impact on Corporate Governance

The pandemic disrupted supply chains, strained liquidity, and forced companies to adopt remote working models. These disruptions highlighted the need for robust governance structures:

  1. Risk Management: Traditional risk assessments often failed to account for pandemic-like events. Companies need to adopt a more comprehensive approach to risk identification, mitigation, and contingency planning.
  2. Stakeholder Engagement: The pandemic underscored the importance of considering the interests of all stakeholders, including employees, customers, and communities.
  3. Sustainability: The crisis emphasized the interconnectedness of environmental, social, and governance (ESG) factors in long-term business success.

Case Law Analysis

Indian courts have played a crucial role in shaping corporate governance practices through landmark judgments. Here’s an analysis of two key cases:

  • Tata Sons Ltd. v. Cyrus P. Mistry (2018): (2021 SCC OnLine SC 272)

This case, concerning the removal of a chairman from a listed company, highlighted the importance of independent directors and minority shareholder protection. It emphasized the need for a balance between control and accountability in governance structures.

Here’s a breakdown:

  • Importance of Independent Directors: The case underscored the crucial role of independent directors on corporate boards. These directors, who are not affiliated with the controlling shareholders or management, can provide objective oversight and act as a check against potential mismanagement.
  • Minority Shareholder Protection: The case highlighted the need for adequate protection of the rights and interests of minority shareholders. Minority shareholders, who hold a smaller percentage of the company’s shares, can sometimes be vulnerable to being sidelined by controlling interests. This case emphasized the importance of ensuring their voices are heard and their rights are upheld.
  • Balance Between Control and Accountability: The case also brought to light the need for a delicate balance between control and accountability in corporate governance structures. Companies require a certain degree of control to function effectively, but this control should not come at the expense of accountability to stakeholders, including shareholders and the public.

The Tata Sons Ltd. v. Cyrus P. Mistry case served as a reminder of the importance of good corporate governance practices in ensuring transparency, fairness, and accountability within companies.

  • SEBI v. Sahara India Real Estate Corporation Ltd. (2012): (AIR 2012 SUPREME COURT 3829, 2012 (10) SCC 603)

This case dealt with the misuse of funds by a listed company. It underscored the role of regulatory bodies like SEBI (Securities and Exchange Board of India) in ensuring financial reporting transparency and investor protection.

Here’s a breakdown:

Sahara India Real Estate Corporation Ltd. (SIRECL), a company part of the Sahara Group, was accused of raising funds from investors through issuance of Optionally Fully Convertible Debentures (OFCDs) without proper registration with SEBI.

SEBI contended that these OFCDs functioned like securities and brought the case against SIRECL for violating regulations.

The Supreme Court’s verdict:

  • The Court ruled in favour of SEBI, classifying the OFCDs as securities and directing Sahara to refund the collected amount with interest to investors.
  • This decision established SEBI’s authority to regulate not just traditional securities but also instruments resembling them.

The impact of the case:

  • This case set a precedent for stricter financial regulations and investor protection in India.
  • It emphasized the importance of transparency in financial dealings and adherence to regulations by companies.
  • The SEBI-Sahara case remains a significant example of how regulatory bodies work to ensure a fair and balanced investment environment in India.

These judgments demonstrate the judiciary’s commitment to strengthening corporate governance frameworks in India.

Convergence or Divergence?

The debate surrounding convergence versus divergence in corporate governance posits that national systems might be converging towards a single, best-practice model or diverging due to local needs and legal frameworks.

Arguments for Convergence:

  • Globalized Markets: Increased cross-border investments necessitate aligning governance practices with international standards to attract foreign capital and promote investor confidence.
  • Regulatory Pressures: International organizations like the OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development) advocate for robust governance frameworks, influencing national regulations.

Arguments for Divergence:

  • Legal and Institutional Differences: National legal systems, ownership structures, and cultural norms influence governance practices. A “one-size-fits-all” approach might be ineffective.
  • National Interests: Divergent approaches can reflect national economic and social priorities.

The Indian Context:

India has a complex corporate governance landscape influenced by a mixed-ownership model (promoter-driven companies alongside public and institutional investors) and a focus on social responsibility. The pandemic has spurred a revaluation of these practices.

Convergence Trends:

  • Board Composition: The Companies Act, 2013, mandated independent directors, fostering transparency and accountability. Recent Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) regulations emphasize board diversity (gender and skills), aligning with global trends.
  • Stakeholder Engagement: The pandemic highlighted the importance of stakeholder considerations beyond shareholders. Companies are increasingly focusing on employee well-being, supply chain resilience, and social impact initiatives.
  • ESG Integration: Investor focus on ESG factors has driven Indian companies to prioritize environmental sustainability, social responsibility, and ethical governance practices, aligning with international trends.

Divergence Considerations:

  • Family-Owned Businesses: India has a significant number of family-owned businesses with strong promoter control. Stricter regulations on board composition and independent directors might need to be balanced with the realities of such ownership structures.
  • Social Responsibility vs. Profit Maximization: Balancing social responsibility initiatives with profit maximization remains a challenge. The emphasis on social impact might diverge from purely shareholder-centric models prevalent in some Western economies.


The pandemic has served as a wake-up call for the need to strengthen corporate governance practices in India. While there is potential for convergence with global best practices in areas like board diversity and sustainability reporting, India’s unique socio-economic context will likely necessitate a nuanced approach that balances international standards with domestic realities. Moving forward, collaboration between regulators, companies, and stakeholders will be crucial in shaping a robust and resilient corporate governance framework for a post-pandemic India.

i)This opinion/clarification note is based on the facts provided to us and the same is
being issued without any knowledge of intent, prejudice, non-disclosure,
misrepresentation, or concealment of facts if any.   
ii)We have not done investigation of correctness of facts and the limited opinion
represents our understanding of the provisions of the law on the matter. The
compliance mentioned above is not exhaustive and other compliance may also be
involved depending on case to case basis.  
iii)The conclusions reached and views expressed are matters of opinion based on
our understanding of the related laws, rules, notifications, Citations, circulars, etc.  
iv)Pranav Kumar & Associates, Company Secretaries, its partners, associates,
employees or staff shall not be held liable for any action/ consequence arising out
of any contrary view(s) taken by any other party or statutory authority 

Leave a Comment