King, Stubb & Kasiva

King, Stubb & Kasiva

Show options

India

News and developments

KSK Welcomes Two New Partners to the Firm

King Stubb & Kasiva is extremely proud to announce the addition of two distinguished legal professionals, Adnan Siddiqui and Nivedita Bhardwaj, as Partners. Their wealth of expertise and versatile experience shall immensely enhance KSK's Real Estate and Corporate Practices. Adnan Siddiqui – Partner, Real Estate Practice: Adnan Siddiqui joins KSK with expertise in advising startup firms, manufacturing units, and leading real estate developers. His well-rounded portfolio includes contributions to the World Health Organization (WHO) Development Program, where he was instrumental in shaping amendments to the Motor Vehicle Act and enhancing road safety measures in the country. Adnan’s proficiency also extends to real estate litigation and IT laws, making him a versatile asset to the firm. His legal acumen promises to further strengthen KSK's Real Estate Practice. Nivedita Bhardwaj – Partner, Corporate Practice Nivedita Bhardwaj joins KSK as a Corporate Partner, bringing with her a distinguished track record in venture capital and private equity transactions, mergers and acquisitions, and general corporate commercial practice matters. Advising clients across industries including fintech, e-commerce, FMCG, and gaming, Nivedita is well-positioned to contribute transformative strategies to KSK's Corporate Practice. The addition of Adnan Siddiqui and Nivedita Bhardwaj to KSK’s team marks yet another significant milestone in our journey toward enhancing our service offerings. Our newest Partners’ arrival reinforces our commitment to delivering tailored and impactful legal solutions, ensuring clients benefit from a blend of deep expertise.  

King Stubb & Kasiva hires 16 lawyers in Mumbai to start a dedicated Media & Entertainment Practice by opening its third office in Mumbai

Mumbai, October 3, 2025 – King Stubb & Kasiva (“KSK”), one of India’s leading full-service law firms, proudly announces the opening of its third office in Mumbai at Remi Commercio, Andheri West, marking the firm’s tenth office nationwide. This new office will serve as a dedicated hub for media and entertainment law and allied practice areas, reinforcing KSK’s commitment to providing specialized legal services to India’s rapidly expanding entertainment and creative industries. The office will be staffed with a strong team comprising 3 partners and lawyers, exclusively focusing on film, television, digital content, music, gaming, advertising, talent management, and emerging media platforms. Jidesh Kumar, Managing Partner of King Stubb & Kasiva, said: “The launch of our Andheri West office is a natural extension of our commitment to remain at the forefront of India’s dynamic legal landscape. Media and entertainment are the most exciting and rapidly evolving industries, and our dedicated presence in Mumbai’s creative hub allows us to serve clients with sharper focus, agility, and innovation. With Arpit and Rahul leading this practice, I am confident that KSK will become the go-to legal partner for India’s entertainment sector.” Arpit Chaudhary, Partner, commented: “The entertainment industry requires legal advisors who understand not just the law but also the business realities of content creation, distribution, and monetization. By setting up this office, we are positioning ourselves in the heart of the industry, enabling us to work more closely with creators, producers, and platforms. I look forward to shaping this exciting journey with our team.” Rahul Mehta, Partner, added: “This new practice group reflects our vision to offer end-to-end solutions tailored to the entertainment ecosystem. From contract negotiations and IP protection to dispute resolution and regulatory advisory, our team will deliver comprehensive support. The Andheri West office will allow us to remain deeply connected to the pulse of the industry.”   About King Stubb & Kasiva King Stubb & Kasiva (KSK) is a full-service national law firm with offices in New Delhi, Mumbai, Bangalore, Chennai, Hyderabad, Kochi, Pune, and Mangalore. With a team of over 230 legal professionals, KSK provides cutting-edge legal solutions across corporate & M&A, competition law, dispute resolution, employment, intellectual property, technology, real estate, energy, DPDP and regulatory practices. The opening of its tenth office underlines the firm’s consistent growth and commitment to being a trusted advisor to businesses across India and beyond. For more Info Reach us at [email protected]

King Stubb & Kasiva Advises IGT Solutions on the Acquisition of Yexle Limited

King Stubb & Kasiva (KSK) is pleased to announce that the firm served as the lead counsel for IGT Solutions, an EQT Group portfolio company renowned for its digital and data-driven transformation solutions, in its acquisition of Yexle Limited, a UK-headquartered IT services company with operations across the United States, India, and Australia. Yexle specialises exclusively in the design, development, and delivery of digital solutions built on the Appian low-code automation platform. This cross-border transaction strengthens IGT Solutions’ technology services capabilities and reinforces its strategic focus on expanding expertise in automation-led digital transformation. The transaction was led by KSK’s Senior Partner Rajesh Sivaswamy and Associate Partner Surbhi Kapoor, who acted as lead counsel, supported by Udita Arya, Ashok Neelakandhan, Akriti Sharma, Mona Rawat, and Hariom Bajpai. Their combined expertise ensured the seamless execution of this complex, multi-jurisdictional acquisition. This successful outcome was further enabled by the dedicated support of Yogeshwar Dutt (Senior Vice President & Head - Corporate Development at IGT Solutions), Radha Papinani (GGC at IGT Solutions), and Megha Grewal (Senior Legal Counsel at IGT Solutions).

King Stubb & Kasiva Secures Delhi High Court Direction to Social Media Platforms on Deputy CM Pawan Kalyan’s Personality Rights Complaint

King Stubb & Kasiva (KSK) is pleased to announce a positive development in the personality rights suit filed on behalf of Shri Pawan Kalyan, Hon’ble Deputy Chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh and celebrated actor. On December 12, 2025, the Delhi High Court, presided over by Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, directed major social media intermediaries, Meta, Google and X, to examine and act on complaints relating to unauthorised commercial use of Shri Kalyan’s persona within one week, and to communicate any reservations they may have directly to him. The matter has been listed for further consideration on December 22, 2025. The suit underscores the growing importance of safeguarding personality rights in a rapidly expanding digital landscape. The Court’s directions reflect an encouraging emphasis on accountability and responsible content management across online platforms, helping to ensure meaningful protection of an individual’s name, likeness and identity. King Stubb & Kasiva welcomes the Court’s proactive stance and remains committed to advancing the protection of personality rights and digital identities for public figures and private individuals alike. The firm remains committed to championing personality rights and safeguarding digital identities for public figures and private individuals, as part of its broader focus on technology law, digital rights, and intellectual property protection.   For media enquiries, please contact: Shruti Thapa Contact No – 9101333234, [email protected] For more information visit https://ksandk.com/contact-us/ / [email protected]

KSK Law Firm Secures Major Victory for Allcargo Logistics in Trademark Infringement Case

In CS (COMM) 1113/2025, the Delhi High Court has granted an interim injunction in favour of Allcargo Logistics Limited, restraining the defendants from using the mark “VRS ALLCARGO” or any other mark deceptively similar to “ALLCARGO” in relation to logistics and allied services King Stubb & Kasiva (KSK), through its Intellectual Property practice led by Himanshu Deora, Partner - IP, has successfully represented Allcargo Logistics Limited, a leading Indian multinational logistics company, in a significant trademark enforcement matter before the Delhi High Court, securing robust judicial protection for the globally recognised ALLCARGO brand. Founded in India and operating across 180 jurisdictions worldwide, Allcargo has emerged as a global logistics powerhouse, delivering integrated supply chain solutions spanning multimodal transport, contract logistics, express distribution, and logistics infrastructure. The ALLCARGO brand has, over decades, come to represent scale, reliability, and trust in the international logistics ecosystem. The Delhi High Court recognised the long-standing reputation, extensive use, and goodwill associated with the ALLCARGO mark and restrained the unauthorised use of deceptively similar marks by infringing entities, reinforcing the importance of strong trademark enforcement for Indian companies with global operations. The matter was argued by Ms. Swathi Sukumar, Senior Advocate, Delhi High Court, with Himanshu Deora and KSK’s Intellectual Property team playing a pivotal role in developing the enforcement strategy, managing filings, and steering the litigation to a successful outcome.

KSK Secures Key Directions from Telangana High Court Reinforcing Procedural Fairness in Tax Investigations

King Stubb & Kasiva (KSK) is pleased to share a significant tax litigation update arising from proceedings involving Miles Education Pvt. Ltd. before the Hon’ble High Court of Telangana. In its order, the Court issued important directions to the investigating authorities, underscoring that inquiries must be conducted strictly during working hours, statements must be recorded voluntarily, and established judicial safeguards must be adhered to at all times. In a subsequent proceeding, the Court further emphasised the need for discretion during investigations, particularly to ensure protection of client confidentiality. These orders reaffirm the judiciary’s continued focus on procedural fairness, protection of individual rights, and responsible conduct by regulatory authorities. The observations serve as a timely reminder that investigative powers must be exercised within the bounds of law and due process. KSK welcomes the Court’s intervention and remains committed to safeguarding constitutional and procedural protections in regulatory and enforcement proceedings. The matters were handled by KSK’s team comprising Vipin Upadhyay - Partner, K. Vidya – Partner Designate, and Sai Charan B. V. N – Principal Associate who briefed Senior Advocate Avinash Desai in both writ petitions.

Delhi High Court Grants Ex Parte Injunction Against AI-Generated Misuse of Akira Nandan’s Identity

The Delhi High Court has granted ex parte ad-interim relief in favour of Akira Desai alias Akira Nandan, restraining the unauthorised AI-generated misuse of his identity and infringement of his personality, publicity and privacy rights. The suit challenged large-scale creation and circulation of AI-generated and deepfake content, including fake accounts and misleading posts across digital platforms, falsely portraying the plaintiff as being associated with various cinematic and commercial projects. This included a full-length AI-generated film depicting him as a lead actor, resulting in public deception and unauthorised commercial exploitation. By an order dated January 23, 2026, Justice Tushar Rao Gedela restrained the defendants and unidentified John Doe parties from creating, publishing or disseminating the impugned AI-generated film “AI LOVE STORY (Telugu) 4K”, or from using the plaintiff’s name, image, likeness, voice or other personality attributes through AI, generative AI, machine learning or deepfake technologies. The Court also directed the immediate takedown of infringing links. The Court observed that the creation of an AI-generated film itself demonstrated the commercial value of the plaintiff’s identity, and that continued circulation would cause irreparable harm. The Court further directed Meta Platforms Inc. to notify users responsible for the infringing URLs within 72 hours, failing which the content was to be removed, and to disclose BSI and IP login details of the account holders within three weeks. The Court relied on DM Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. v. Baby Gift House & Ors. and a recent order in Ranganathan Madhawan v. G Filmz Studioz & Ors. Senior Advocate J. Sai Deepak was briefed by advocates Himanshu Deora (Partner), Rahul Mehta (Partner), Arpit Choudhary (Partner), Krunal Mehta, Karen Koya, Dhwani Vora, B. Sidhi Pramodh Rayudu, Anupriya Alok, Shambhavi Sharma, Sanat Saswadkar, Shambhavi Bharadwaj and Divya Bhushan, of King Stubb & Kasiva (KSK).

Atul N Menon joins King Stubb and Kasiva as Partner in Litigation and Dispute Resolution practice

King Stubb & Kasiva has appointed Atul N Menon as a Partner in its Litigation and Dispute Resolution practice. Atul joins the Firm after being a Partner at SAGA Legal, and prior to that, he was Counsel at AZB & Partners, where he advised and represented clients in complex commercial and regulatory disputes. He holds a B.A. LL.B. (Hons.) from the National University of Advanced Legal Studies (NUALS), Kochi, and an LL.M. in International Dispute Resolution  from Queen Mary University of London. With over 13 years of experience, Atul has represented clients before the Supreme Court of India, several High Courts, and key regulatory and investigative forums, advising on a wide range of white-collar, financial, and audit-related criminal matters, in addition to arbitrations, civil suits, and shareholder disputes. He has advised and represented leading Indian and multinational corporations in high-stakes criminal investigations involving white-collar offences, financial irregularities, and auditing issues, appearing before courts as well as enforcement and investigation agencies. As a key member of litigation teams, Atul has been involved in some of the country’s most high-profile and transformative litigations, with notable successes in insider trading cases, money laundering investigations, and proceedings under foreign exchange laws. His experience also includes representing Chartered Accountants and Company Secretaries in sensitive regulatory and criminal matters. He has also acted for banks and financial institutions in recovery proceedings and has advised corporates on oppression and mismanagement, mergers, capital reductions, and restructuring matters. He also serves on the Advisory Council of the Indian Society of Artificial Intelligence and Law and is a member of the youth wings of leading international arbitration institutions, including YIAG, YICCA, and YMCIA. His work has been recognised through his inclusion in BW LegalWorld’s “40 Under 40” list of legal elites (2024) and his recognition as a “Future Star” for White-Collar Crime by Benchmark Litigation (2025). Commenting on Atul’s joining, Mr. Jidesh Kumar, Managing Partner of King Stubb & Kasiva, said: “We are delighted to welcome Atul to the partnership. His sharp litigation acumen, deep expertise in white-collar and regulatory matters, and extensive experience across courts and investigative forums bring immense value to our clients. At KSK, we continue to strengthen a future-ready disputes practice capable of handling complex, high-stakes, and evolving legal challenges.” Atul added, “I am pleased to join King Stubb & Kasiva at an important inflection point in the Firm’s growth. KSK’s strong credentials in complex litigation, white-collar, and regulatory matters, coupled with its progressive and collaborative culture, make it a compelling platform. I look forward to working with the team to further strengthen the disputes practice and to advising clients on high-stakes, strategically critical matters.”

Abhishek Paliwal joins King Stubb & Kasiva as Partner in the Corporate Practice in New Delhi

King Stubb & Kasiva has appointed Abhishek Paliwal as a Partner in its Corporate practice, further strengthening the Firm’s capabilities across M&A, capital markets, corporate governance, and regulatory advisory. Abhishek brings with him over 12 years of experience in corporate and capital markets law, with deep expertise in SEBI regulations, Companies Act, FEMA advisory, IPOs, corporate governance, and compliance advisory. He has advised listed companies, startups, capital market intermediaries, and multinational corporations on complex regulatory and transactional matters. Prior to joining King Stubb & Kasiva, Abhishek, he was a Practice Head at law firms and was a member of the Brand Building Committee of the Institute of Company Secretaries of India (ICSI). Commenting on Abhishek’s joining, Mr. Jidesh Kumar, Managing Partner, King Stubb & Kasiva, said: “Abhishek’s induction as Partner reflects our focus on strengthening key practice areas. His experience in corporate, capital markets, and regulatory advisory will further solidify our corporate practice and will add significant value to our corporate and transactional practice. Abhishek Paliwal added: “I am pleased to join King Stubb & Kasiva and be part of a Firm that has built a strong reputation across corporate and regulatory advisory. I look forward to working closely with the team to support clients on their corporate, governance, and compliance requirements.”

KSK Secures Supreme Court Victory for Hamdard; Rooh Afza Classified as ‘Fruit Drink’

New Delhi, February 25, 2026: King Stubb & Kasiva (KSK) successfully represented Hamdard (Wakf) Laboratories before the Supreme Court of India in a significant VAT classification dispute concerning its flagship product, Sharbat Rooh Afza, under the Uttar Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2008. In a reportable judgment (2026 INSC 195), a Bench comprising Hon’ble Justices B.V. Nagarathna and R. Mahadevan set aside the decision of the Allahabad High Court and held that Rooh Afza is classifiable as a “fruit drink” under Entry 103 of Schedule II (Part A), attracting VAT at the concessional rate of 4% instead of 12.5% under the residuary entry for the period 2008–2012. The Court ruled that regulatory or licensing classification cannot control or curtail the interpretation of a fiscal entry. It further held that the Revenue has failed to discharge further held that the burden lies on the Revenue to justify classification under a residuary entry, which was not discharged in the present case. Lastly, the Court held that resort to the residuary entry is impermissible where classification under a specific entry is reasonably and sustainably possible. Senior Advocate Arvind Datar appeared for Hamdard, briefed by the KSK team comprising Aditya Bhattacharya (Partner), Vipin Upadhyay (Partner), Simran Tandon (Associate Partner), Ritwik Tyagi (Associate), and Akriti Sharma (Associate). The ruling is an important precedent on VAT/GST classification of traditional beverage concentrates and limits on the use of residuary entries by tax authorities. About King Stubb & Kasiva (KSK) King Stubb & Kasiva is a full-service Indian law firm with a pan-India presence and a team of over 200 legal professionals. The firm advises multinational corporations, financial institutions, government bodies, and emerging businesses across key practice areas including corporate and M&A, dispute resolution, taxation, intellectual property, regulatory, media and entertainment, employment and technology laws.

KSK Secures Supreme Court Victory for Hamdard; Rooh Afza Classified as ‘Fruit Drink’

New Delhi, February 25, 2026: King Stubb & Kasiva (KSK) successfully represented Hamdard (Wakf) Laboratories before the Supreme Court of India in a significant VAT classification dispute concerning its flagship product, Sharbat Rooh Afza, under the Uttar Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2008. In a reportable judgment (2026 INSC 195), a Bench comprising Hon’ble Justices B.V. Nagarathna and R. Mahadevan set aside the decision of the Allahabad High Court and held that Rooh Afza is classifiable as a “fruit drink” under Entry 103 of Schedule II (Part A), attracting VAT at the concessional rate of 4% instead of 12.5% under the residuary entry for the period 2008-2012. The Court ruled that regulatory or licensing classification cannot control or curtail the interpretation of a fiscal entry. It further held that the Revenue has failed to discharge further held that the burden lies on the Revenue to justify classification under a residuary entry, which was not discharged in the present case. Lastly, the Court held that resort to the residuary entry is impermissible where classification under a specific entry is reasonably and sustainably possible. Senior Advocate Arvind Datar appeared for Hamdard, briefed by the KSK team comprising Aditya Bhattacharya (Partner), Vipin Upadhyay (Partner), Simran Tandon (Associate Partner), Ritwik Tyagi (Associate), and Akriti Sharma (Associate). The ruling is an important precedent on VAT/GST classification of traditional beverage concentrates and limits on the use of residuary entries by tax authorities. About King Stubb & Kasiva (KSK) King Stubb & Kasiva is a full-service Indian law firm with a pan-India presence and a team of over 200 legal professionals. The firm advises multinational corporations, financial institutions, government bodies, and emerging businesses across key practice areas including corporate and M&A, dispute resolution, taxation, intellectual property, regulatory, media and entertainment, employment and technology laws.

KSK secures interim injunction protecting upcoming film against defamatory content

Bengaluru, March 18, 2026: King Stubb & Kasiva (KSK) has successfully secured an ex parte interim injunction on behalf of its client, Mythri Movie Makers, before the Hon’ble City Civil and Sessions Court, Bengaluru, in a significant matter concerning protection against defamatory and malicious content relating to the upcoming film Ustaad Bhagat Singh. The Hon’ble Court, after hearing the Plaintiff and perusing the pleadings and documents on record, was pleased to grant an ex parte temporary injunction restraining the defendants, including X Corp, YouTube LLC, Google India Private Limited, BigTree Entertainment Pvt Ltd, IMDb.com Inc., and Meta Platforms Inc., from telecasting, transmitting, publishing, or distributing any false, malicious, defamatory, or derogatory content concerning the film. The Court observed that the Plaintiff had established a prima facie case, and that the balance of convenience lay in its favour. It further held that in the absence of interim protection, the Plaintiff would suffer irreparable harm, thereby justifying urgent relief. The Court also recognized the applicability of “John Doe” principles against unknown parties, reinforcing the Plaintiff’s right to safeguard its interests against anonymous or unidentified actors. The matter was argued by Mr. Navod Prasannan (Partner), who led the proceedings on behalf of the Plaintiff. The KSK team advising on the matter comprised Mr. Navod Prasannan (Partner), Mr. Rahul Mehta (Partner), Mr. Arpit Choudhury (Partner), Mr. Atul Menon (Partner), Mr. Krunal Mehta (Associate Partner), Mr. Naren Shetty (Senior Associate), Ms. Mehak Chaichani (Associate), and Ms. Akalya Ravichandran (Associate). This order marks an important step in protecting creative works from premature and potentially damaging content dissemination, particularly in the digital ecosystem. The matter is next listed for further hearing on April 27, 2026.

KSK Secures Ad Interim Ex Parte Temporary Injunction Protecting Upcoming Film Jetlee Against Defamatory and Malicious Online Content

King Stubb & Kasiva (KSK) has successfully secured an ad interim ex parte temporary injunction on behalf of its client, Clap Entertainment (represented by its Proprietor, Pedamallu Chiranjeevi), before the Hon'ble CCH8 XI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, in a significant matter concerning protection against defamatory and malicious content relating to the upcoming film Jetlee (Case No. O.S./0003098/2026, CNR No. KABC010121302026). The Hon'ble Court, after hearing the Plaintiff and carefully perusing the pleadings and documents on record, was pleased to grant an ad interim ex parte temporary injunction restraining the defendants, including X Corp and other platforms, from publishing, circulating, sharing, hosting, streaming, or in any other manner communicating any false, defamatory, derogatory, malicious, unverified or harmful content, including challenging feedback, trolling, false narratives, personal attacks, reaction videos, community polls, boycott campaigns or similar material - relating to the Plaintiff's film Jetlee. The Court further directed the defendants to de-index, de-reference and render non-searchable all existing defamatory content and any substantially similar future links/URLs across search engines and internal platform searches, thereby ensuring the permanent suppression of such material. The defendants were additionally directed to block defamatory or orchestrated negative responses and manipulated ratings on social media platforms, websites, and movie booking/rating portals, and were restrained from exploiting any photographs, clips, or footage from the film for defamatory, malicious or similar improper purposes. The Court observed that the Plaintiff had established a prima facie case, that the balance of convenience lay in its favour, and that in the absence of interim protection, the Plaintiff would suffer irreparable harm - thereby justifying the grant of urgent relief. The Court further directed the Plaintiff to comply with the provisions of Order XXXIX Rule 3(a) of the CPC. This order reinforces the critical need to protect creative works, particularly in the digital ecosystem, from orchestrated rating manipulation, artificial bulk-based ticket feedback, coordinated down-ranking campaigns, and other activities intended to distort, diminish, or misrepresent the public perception and reception of a film prior to its release. The KSK Team The matter was led and argued by Mr. Navod Prasannan (Partner), who helmed the proceedings on behalf of the Plaintiff. The KSK team advising on the matter comprised: Navod Prasannan (Partner) Rahul Mehta (Partner) Arpit Choudhury (Partner) Krunal Mehta (Associate Partner) Mehak Chaichani (Associate) Akalya Ravichandran (Associate) Karen Koya (Associate) This order marks an important milestone in safeguarding the creative and commercial interests of film producers and distributors against the growing menace of coordinated digital defamation campaigns. The matter is next listed before the Hon'ble Court on 07-08-2026 for return of summons issued to defendants For media inquiries, please contact: King Stubb & Kasiva | Advocates & Attorneys www.ksandk.com

King Stubb & Kasiva Strengthens Data Privacy Practice with the Addition of Dhruv Kaushal as Partner

New Delhi, 1st June, 2026 - King Stubb & Kasiva (KSK), one of India's fastest-growing full-service law firms, is pleased to announce the appointment of Dhruv Kaushal as Partner.  Dhruv will lead the Firm's Data Privacy Practice, further strengthening KSK's capabilities in technology law, artificial intelligence, data privacy, cybersecurity, telecommunications, and digital regulatory compliance. Dhruv joins KSK with over a decade of experience advising global corporations, technology companies, and emerging businesses on complex technology and data protection matters. Prior to joining KSK, he served as Associate Director in Deloitte India's Legal and Regulatory Practice, where he advised clients on data privacy, artificial intelligence, telecom regulations, intermediary guidelines, and other critical regulatory frameworks shaping the digital economy. A Certified Information Privacy Professional (Europe) [CIPP(E)], Dhruv has been at the forefront of India's rapidly evolving privacy landscape, advising Fortune 50 companies and leading enterprises on compliance with the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 (DPDP Act), the EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), and other global privacy frameworks. Over the course of his career, Dhruv has advised more than 110 organizations on DPDP readiness and implementation, conducted over 250 privacy awareness and compliance training sessions, and guided businesses through complex data breach response scenarios across multiple jurisdictions, including India, the United Kingdom, and Europe. Commenting on the appointment, Jidesh Kumar, Managing Partner at King Stubb & Kasiva, said: "India's digital economy is entering a defining phase, driven by the implementation of the DPDP Act, the rapid adoption of artificial intelligence, and increased regulatory scrutiny across sectors. Dhruv's deep expertise in technology regulation and data privacy perfectly complements our growth strategy. His leadership will further enhance our ability to provide forward-looking, business-centric advice to clients navigating this dynamic environment." Speaking on his joining, Dhruv Kaushal said: "The intersection of technology, data, and regulation is becoming increasingly critical for businesses. KSK's entrepreneurial culture, strong pan-India presence, and commitment to innovation make it an exciting platform to build a market-leading technology and data protection practice. I look forward to working with the Firm's talented teams and helping clients navigate the opportunities and challenges of the digital economy." Dhruv’s appointment underscores KSK's continued investment in future-focused practice areas and reinforces the Firm's commitment to delivering sophisticated legal solutions for businesses operating in an increasingly technology-driven world. About King Stubb & Kasiva King Stubb & Kasiva (KSK) is a leading full-service law firm with offices across India and a strong presence across key sectors including corporate and commercial, disputes, employment, real estate, infrastructure, technology, data privacy, regulatory, and cross-border transactions. The Firm advises domestic and international clients across industries, combining legal excellence with practical business insight. For additional information, please contact: Shruti Thapa, Corporate Communications Executive, King Stubb and Kasiva Email – [email protected]  

Delhi High Court Protects US Company I-Chrono LLC in a Software Dispute, Orders Preservation of Source Code Against Fluper Limited.

2nd July, 2026, New Delhi: King Stubb & Kasiva successfully represented I-Chrono LLC, a United States-based company operating an online marketplace for luxury watches, before the Delhi High Court in a commercial suit against Fluper Limited concerning the development of its proprietary mobile application and website. The dispute arises out of a series of software development agreements entered into between I-Chrono and Fluper for the development of I-Chrono's digital platform. I-Chrono fully discharged its payment obligations under the First Agreement and also made substantial payments under the subsequent agreements, with the understanding that it would receive complete ownership and delivery of the source code and all related development materials. According to the suit, despite receiving the entire consideration payable under the First Agreement and substantial payments under the remaining agreements, Fluper allegedly withheld the source code and other critical project materials, thereby preventing I-Chrono from independently operating, maintaining, and further developing its technology platform. I-Chrono has contended that such conduct amounts to a breach of the contractual obligations as well as the trust reposed in Fluper as its software development partner. Recognising the urgency of the matter, the Delhi High Court granted ad interim relief directing Fluper to preserve the source code, repositories, project files, credentials and all related development materials. The Court further restrained Fluper from destroying, altering, transferring, disseminating, distributing or otherwise dealing with the source code and related materials in any manner that may prejudice I-Chrono’s rights during the pendency of the proceedings. The order highlights the proactive approach of Indian courts in safeguarding the commercial and intellectual property interests of foreign businesses and protecting them against alleged arm-twisting tactics, including the unlawful withholding of proprietary software assets. The matter is presently pending adjudication before the Delhi High Court. The Plaintiff, I-Chrono LLC, was represented by Senior Advocate Rajshekhar Rao, along with the King Stubb & Kasiva team comprising Adv. Sukrit R. Kapoor (Partner), Adv. Aayushya Aankul (Principal Associate) and Adv. Kumari Tanya (Associate) before the Delhi High Court. About King Stubb & Kasiva King Stubb & Kasiva (KSK) is a leading full-service law firm with offices across India. The firm advises domestic and international clients across diverse sectors on corporate and commercial law, dispute resolution, insolvency and restructuring, banking and finance, intellectual property, technology law, employment law, taxation, and regulatory matters. KSK is recognized for delivering practical, business-focused legal solutions backed by deep industry expertise. Media Contact: Shruti Thapa Corporate Communications Executive King Stubb & Kasiva, Advocates & Attorneys Email: [email protected] Mobile: +91-9101333234 Website: https://ksandk.com  

Navigating Fund Management Regulations – SEBI and IFSCA

Alternative Investment Funds (AIFs) have become crucial mechanisms for directing investments into emerging sectors such as startups, infrastructure, and private equity.In India, these funds are governed by two separate regulatory frameworks: the SEBI (Alternative Investment Funds) Regulations, 2012, and the IFSCA (Fund Management) Regulations, 2022. The SEBI regulations primarily focus on domestic investments, while the IFSCA regulations are designed to establish India’s International Financial Services Centres (IFSCs), particularly GIFT City, as global financial hubs. OVERVIEW OF REGULATORY AUTHORITIES SEBI The Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI), established under the SEBI Act, 1992, oversees the regulation of domestic financial markets, including AIFs. SEBI’s primary objectives include investor protection, market transparency, and promoting investments in critical sectors like infrastructure and startups. IFSCA The International Financial Services Centres Authority (IFSCA), established under the IFSCA Act, 2019, regulates financial services within designated IFSCs. The IFSCA framework is designed to attract international investors and align with global financial norms. KEY OBJECTIVES SEBI AIF Regulations: Encourage domestic economic expansion by allocating funds to vital industries. Give alternative investments a well-organised framework. Make sure there are strong safeguards for investors. Increase the transparency of the market Encourage new economic ecosystems, such as infrastructure and businesses. Encourage the strategic allocation of capital in key national industries. Put thorough risk management techniques into practice. Establish regulatory frameworks for varied investment strategies. IFSCA Fund Management Regulations: Place International financial services centres in India as centres for international investment Draw in foreign fund managers and investors. Regulating frameworks in accordance with international financial standards Establish investment environments that are flexible and competitive. Encourage international investment channels Encourage investments in cutting-edge industries like fintech and ESG Lower regulatory obstacles to global financial involvement Create globally acclaimed money management procedures. Give international investors tax and structural benefits.   REGISTRATION REQUIREMENTS: SEBI AIF Regulations: Registration process: Entities must fulfil certain requirements to register as an Alternative Investment Fund (AIF) under the Securities and Exchange Board of India’s (SEBI) regulations. SEBI AIF Registration Requirements The legal structure of a business must be established as a trust, limited liability partnership (LLP), or company. It cannot be a Registered FME (Retail) if it is set up as an LLP. AIF Categories: - - Category I: Funds that make investments in social ventures, small and medium-sized businesses (SMEs), or start-ups. - Category II: Funds that are allowed to raise money from investors but do not fit into either Category I or III. - Category III: Funds that may use leveraged investments and use a variety of intricate trading tactics. Minimum Net Worth: The applicant needs to meet SEBI’s minimum net worth requirements. For example, Category I AIFs usually demand a minimum net value of ₹5 crore. An established track record in money management or comparable disciplines is a prerequisite for experience. It is generally preferable to have at least five years of experience. Application Submission: Send a completed application to SEBI, including the required paperwork and payment. Applications with errors may be denied. Establish a compliance officer who will be in charge of making sure that rules are followed. A thorough description of the investment strategy, target investors, and risk management procedures must be included in the application. The profile of the fund manager or managers must include information about their credentials and experience. IFSCA Fund Management Regulations Registration Process: Entities must obtain a certificate of registration from the Authority before starting fund management operations. There are three categories for registration: Authorised FME: For private placements and venture capital investments. Registered FME (Non-Retail): For private placements and portfolio management services targeting accredited investors. Registered FME (Retail): For public offerings and retail schemes without investor limits. FUND CATEGORIZATION SEBI AIF Regulations AIFs under SEBI are divided into: Category I: Promotes investments in economically beneficial areas (e.g., venture capital, infrastructure funds). Category II: Includes private equity and debt funds that do not receive specific incentives. Category III: Comprises hedge funds and other funds employing complex strategies. IFSCA Fund Management Regulations Funds in IFSCs are classified into: Retail Funds: Accessible to retail investors, with lower thresholds. Restricted Funds: Target institutional and high-net-worth investors. Specialized Funds: Focus on areas like ESG (Environmental, Social, and Governance), fintech, and private equity.   FUND STRUCTURES SEBI AIF Regulations Funds can be structured as: Trusts Limited Liability Partnerships (LLPs) Companies Bodies Corporate These structures cater to India’s domestic investment environment. IFSCA Fund Management Regulations Funds under IFSCA allow: Segregated Portfolio Companies (SPCs): Facilitates asset and liability segregation within a single entity. Variable Capital Companies (VCCs): Proposed introduction for greater operational flexibility (common in jurisdictions like Singapore). Traditional structures like trusts and LLPs. COMPLIANCE AND REPORTING SEBI AIF Regulations Registration: Mandatory with SEBI, requiring detailed disclosures on objectives, investor profiles, and strategies. Minimum Investment: ₹1 crore for each investor. Leverage: Restricted for Category I and II funds. Reporting: Regular quarterly and annual reports are mandatory. IFSCA Fund Management Regulations Registration: Simplified processes tailored for international participants. Investment Thresholds: Relaxed requirements, especially for retail funds. Leverage: Permissible for sophisticated funds, adhering to global norms. Reporting Standards: Align with international best practices for transparency. TAXATION FRAMEWORK SEBI AIF Regulations Category I and II Funds: Tax pass-through status; income is taxed at the investor level. Category III Funds: Income is taxed at the fund level, resulting in higher effective taxation. Standard domestic taxation laws apply, which can be less attractive to foreign investors. IFSCA Fund Management Regulations Funds in IFSCs benefit from a favourable tax regime: Capital Gains Tax: Exemptions for non-residents. Withholding Tax: Lower rates on interest income. GST Exemptions: On fund management services. These incentives make IFSCs competitive compared to global hubs like Dubai or Singapore. INVESTMENT FOCUS AND STRATEGIES SEBI AIF Regulations Primarily focused on investments within India. Targets sectors like startups, small and medium enterprises (SMEs), and social impact ventures. IFSCA Fund Management Regulations Emphasizes cross-border investments. Supports innovative sectors like ESG, global real estate, and fintech. RECENT DEVELOPMENTS SEBI AIF Regulations ESG Norms: Introduced mandatory disclosure requirements for funds focusing on ESG investments. Strengthened Governance: Updated rules on fund operations to improve investor confidence. IFSCA Fund Management Regulations VCC Framework: Proposed introduction of Variable Capital Companies to enhance operational flexibility. Global Collaborations: Agreements with international regulators to streamline cross-border investments. Comparison Table Aspect SEBI AIF Regulations IFSCA Fund Management Regulations Regulatory Body SEBI IFSCA Target Market Domestic Global Investors Fund Structures Trusts, LLPs, Companies Includes SPCs, VCCs, Trusts, LLPs Tax Benefits Limited Significant Minimum Investment ₹1 crore Flexible, lower thresholds for retail funds Leverage Restricted Permitted Investor Base HNIs and Domestic Institutions Retail, Institutional, and Non-Residents Conclusion The SEBI AIF Regulations and IFSCA Fund Management Regulations represent distinct approaches to fostering alternative investments. While SEBI focuses on domestic economic priorities and investor protection, IFSCA offers a globally competitive framework with tax incentives and structural flexibility. Together, these frameworks provide a robust foundation for India’s financial sector, enabling it to cater to both domestic and international investors effectively. The choice between these frameworks depends on the investment strategy, geographical focus, and regulatory preferences of fund managers and investors. As India’s financial landscape evolves, these complementary regulations will play a pivotal role in driving the country’s growth and global integration. Author: Pooja Chatterjee and Aribba Siddique  

King Stubb & Kasiva secures complete exoneration for Thoughtsol Infotech as CCI penalises HP India ₹126.87 crore in GeM tender cartel

New Delhi, July 13th 2026: In a significant outcome for its client Thoughtsol Infotech Private Limited, King Stubb & Kasiva has secured a complete exoneration before the Competition Commission of India (the Commission), in a matter in which the Commission has penalised HP India Sales Private Limited ₹126.87 crore and penalised five other resellers. The proceedings arose out of Suo Moto Case No. 07 of 2020, initiated on a leniency application filed by HP India itself, alleging cartelisation between the OEM and its resellers in tenders floated on the Government e-Marketplace platform. The Director General returned findings of contravention against HP India and all ten of its resellers, including Thoughtsol. The position confronting the client was a difficult one. HP India had admitted the cartel in its leniency disclosures, in which Thoughtsol stood implicated. The defence advanced on Thoughtsol's behalf was that no agreement had been made out at all, as there was no consensus ad idem between the parties, and that the Director General had inferred concerted action from unilateral communications without examining what Thoughtsol had done in response to them. By its order dated 13 July 2026, a bench comprising Chairperson Ms. Ravneet Kaur and Members Mr. Anil Agrawal, Ms. Sweta Kakkad and Mr. Deepak Anurag accepted the submissions and held that Thoughtsol had quoted its prices independent of HP India, and that no case of contravention was established against it. The order carries wider significance. The Commission rejected the vertical relationship defence run by almost every reseller in the matter, holding that once an OEM and its reseller both bid in the same tender, they step into the shoes of competitors. For OEM channel partners across the public procurement sector, routine transfer price and authorisation correspondence now falls to be assessed on an entirely different footing. Statement from the Legal Team "The Commission's findings confirm what we argued throughout, which is that an inference of collusion cannot be drawn from correspondence alone. What a party does with a communication matter far more than the fact that it received one. Our client priced its bids independently, and the record bore that out." Appearances Senior Counsel Mr. Vaibhav Gaggar appeared on behalf of Thoughtsol Infotech Private Limited and successfully advanced the case before the Commission. The matter was led and strategically handled by Aniket Ghosh, Partner at King Stubb & Kasiva, along Sarthak Miglani from the firm's Competition Law team.

KSK Secures Interim Injunction for Andhra Pradesh Deputy Chief Minister Sri Konidala Pawan Kalyan in High-Profile Defamation Suit

Bengaluru, June 17th 2026: In a significant legal victory for Andhra Pradesh Deputy Chief Minister and Jana Sena Party President Sri Konidala Pawan Kalyan, the Bengaluru City Civil Court has granted an interim injunction restraining the publication and circulation of allegedly defamatory content concerning him across various digital and social media platforms. The suit was instituted following the circulation of a series of videos, articles, social media posts, and online publications alleging that Sri Pawan Kalyan had encroached upon public land and water bodies in Telangana. The Plaintiff asserted that the allegations were entirely false, malicious, and designed to tarnish his reputation as a public servant, political leader, and public figure. Recognising the seriousness of the allegations and the potential for irreparable reputational harm, the Court passed an interim order restraining the defendants and all persons acting through them from publishing, republishing, broadcasting, transmitting, uploading, displaying, or otherwise disseminating the impugned content. The Court further directed the concerned social media intermediaries to block access to the allegedly defamatory material pending adjudication of the dispute. In a subsequent hearing, the Court expanded the scope of protection by modifying its earlier order to expressly include additional URLs, videos, and content sources identified by the Plaintiff, ensuring comprehensive interim relief against the continued circulation of the impugned material. The matter assumes particular significance given Sri Pawan Kalyan's stature as the Deputy Chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh and one of India's most prominent political leaders. The order highlights the judiciary's willingness to intervene where digital publications are alleged to cause serious and immediate harm to an individual's reputation, while reaffirming that freedom of expression carries with it corresponding responsibilities. The case also represents an important development in the evolving legal landscape governing online defamation, intermediary liability, and the regulation of digital content in India. Senior Counsel Dr. Aruna Shyam M appeared on behalf of the Plaintiff and successfully advanced the case before the Court. The matter was led and strategically handled by Navod Prasannan, Rahul Mehta, and Atul Menon, Partners at King Stubb & Kasiva, along with Mehak C and Maya B from the firm's Dispute Resolution team. Statement from the Legal Team "This order reinforces a fundamental principle that reputation is an invaluable right deserving of protection, irrespective of the medium through which defamatory content is disseminated. In an era where digital publications can spread instantly and cause far-reaching harm, timely judicial intervention remains critical in safeguarding individuals from the consequences of false and misleading allegations." The matter is presently pending further proceedings before the Bengaluru City Civil Court. Appearances For the Plaintiff: Sri Konidala Pawan Kalyan Dr. Aruna Shyam M, Senior Counsel Navod Prasannan, Partner, King Stubb & Kasiva Rahul Mehta, Partner, King Stubb & Kasiva Atul N. Menon, Partner, King Stubb & Kasiva Mehak Chaichani, Associate, King Stubb and Kasiva Maya B, Associate, King Stubb and Kasiva  

Indigenization and Self-Reliance in Defence Procurement: A Legal Analysis of the Defence Acquisition Procedure 2020

Introduction India's national security environment, shaped by its strategic geography and complex geopolitical relations, necessitates a vigorous defence mechanism.For years, India has been one of the largest importers of defence  equipment, making it vulnerable to supply chain disruptions and external dependencies. This reliance on foreign suppliers has led to an increasing focus on indigenization and self-reliance in defence production. The Defence Acquisition Procedure (DAP) 2020[1] is a crucial policy document that addresses these concerns, aiming to promote indigenization and self-reliance in defence  procurement. Background: The Shift Towards Self-Reliance India's quest for self-reliance in defence procurement can be traced back to its early post-independence years, when it began developing its domestic defence  manufacturing capabilities. However, despite several efforts, the country remained dependent on imports for  majority of its defence needs. According to a 2020 report by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI)[2], India was the world’s second-largest importer of defence equipment, accounting for 9.5% of global arms imports between 2015 and 2019. This heavy dependence on foreign suppliers poses significant challenges to India’s strategic autonomy. Realizing the need for indigenization, the Indian government has gradually introduced reforms aimed at enhancing domestic defence manufacturing capabilities. In recent years, Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s vision of Atmanirbhar Bharat (Self-Reliant India) has become a central policy goal, further propelling the agenda of indigenization . The Defence Acquisition Procedure 2020 The Defence Acquisition Procedure, 2020 supersedes the Defence Procurement Procedure (DPP), 2016 and represents a paradigm shift in India’s defence procurement policy. It is designed to promote the indigenous defence industry, streamline acquisition processes, and boost transparency in procurement decisions. Key features of the DAP 2020 include: Buy (Indian-IDDM) Category: DAP 2020 introduces the Buy (Indian-IDDM) (Indigenously Designed, Developed, and Manufactured)[3] category as the top priority for defence procurement. This category requires defence products to have a minimum of 50% indigenous content and ensures that preference is given to equipment that is designed and developed in India. By promoting local research, design, and manufacturing, this provision serves as a critical step towards achieving self-reliance. Increased Indigenous Content Requirements: The DAP 2020 mandates higher levels of indigenous content across various procurement categories. For instance, the Buy (Indian) category requires a minimum of 50% indigenous content, up from 40% in the previous policy. Similarly, the Buy and Make (Indian) category mandates at least 50% indigenous content in the manufacturing phase. Make in India Initiative: The Make procedure[4] in DAP 2020 aligns with the Make in India initiative and focuses on promoting indigenous defence manufacturing. The policy introduces two subcategories under Make: Make-I (government-funded projects) and Make-II (industry-funded projects). The government provides up to 70% funding for prototype development in Make-I projects, encouraging the domestic defence industry to innovate and collaborate with the government on cutting-edge defence technologies. Strategic Partnership Model: The Strategic Partnership (SP) Model introduced in DAP 2020 promotes collaboration between Indian private companies and foreign Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEMs). This model facilitates technology transfer, allowing domestic companies to gain expertise in manufacturing high-end defence equipment. Key defence platforms, including fighter aircraft, submarines, and helicopters, are expected to be developed under this model. Leasing Model for Defence Equipment: One of the notable introductions in DAP 2020 is the leasing model, which enables the armed forces to lease equipment instead of outright purchase. This model is particularly useful for acquiring expensive equipment like transport aircraft, helicopters, and drones. Leasing reduces the financial burden on the government while ensuring that the armed forces have access to the latest technology. Focus on MSMEs: The DAP 2020 emphasizes the role of Micro, Small, and Medium Enterprises (MSMEs) in defence production[5]. By encouraging MSMEs to participate in defence procurement, the policy aims to create a robust domestic supply chain and provide opportunities for smaller companies to contribute to defence manufacturing. Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) in Defence: To attract foreign investment in the defence sector, the government has increased the Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) limit to 74% under the automatic route[6]. This policy change is intended to facilitate technology transfer and joint ventures between Indian companies and foreign defence manufacturers, thereby enhancing domestic production capabilities. Legal and Regulatory Framework The Defence Acquisition Procedure, 2020 operates within a broader legal and regulatory framework is designed to ensure transparency, accountability, and efficiency in defence procurement. The primary legislative and regulatory framework includes: Defence Production & Export Promotion Policy (DPEPP) 2020: the DPEPP[7] outlines the government’s vision for creating an indigenous defence manufacturing base. It emphasizes self-reliance in defence technology and sets the goal of increasing the share of domestic procurement in India’s defence acquisitions. Defence Procurement Manual (DPM): The DPM[8] provides guidelines for defence procurement below a certain financial threshold, complementing the DAP 2020 by ensuring that smaller acquisitions also align with the government’s indigenization goals. Public Procurement (Preference to Make in India) Order, 2017: This order[9], issued by the Department for Promotion of Industry and Internal Trade (DPIIT), mandates that preference be given to domestically produced goods and services in public procurement. It applies to defence procurement as well and is in line with the objectives of DAP 2020. Innovation for Defence Excellence (iDEX): The iDEX[10] initiative, launched in 2018, fosters innovation and technology development in the defence sector. It provides funding and support to startups and MSMEs that develop innovative solutions for defence needs. DAP 2020 leverages the iDEX platform to encourage home-grown solutions to defence challenges. Defence Industrial Corridors: The government has established two Defence Industrial Corridors[11]—one in Tamil Nadu and another in Uttar Pradesh—to promote defense manufacturing. These corridors aim to attract investments, foster innovation, and build an ecosystem conducive to defence production. Data and Current Progress Since the implementation of the Defence Acquisition Procedure (DAP) 2020, India has made substantial progress toward indigenization and self-reliance in defence procurement. According to the Ministry of Defence, as of 2023-24, around 75% of India's capital procurement budget has been allocated to domestic sources, a significant increase from 68% in 2022-23[12]. This boost aligns with India’s broader "Atmanirbhar Bharat" (self-reliant India) initiative and highlights the growing role of local defence manufacturers in meeting the country's needs. Growth in Defence Exports India’s defence exports have witnessed a remarkable surge, with the 2022-23 fiscal year recording ₹16,000 crore (USD 1.93 billion), more than doubling from ₹8,434 crore in 2021-22. This growth is largely attributed to government policies aimed at promoting indigenization and facilitating exports, as well as the development of indigenous platforms like the Light Combat Aircraft (LCA) Tejas, advanced UAVs, helicopters, and naval ships. Major Indigenous Defence Projects Recent procurement contracts underscore India’s focus on building indigenous capabilities. For example, the Ministry of Defence signed contract for 83 Tejas Mk-1A jets from Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL), with deliveries in 2024. Additionally, the Indian Army has inducted 118 Arjun Mark-1A main battle tanks, valued at ₹8,400 crore. These projects highlight India's growing capability to develop and procure advanced systems domestically[13]. Foreign Partnerships and Technology Transfers Despite its indigenization efforts, India continues to pursue strategic foreign partnerships to acquire cutting-edge technology. In 2023, India signed a $3 billion deal with the U.S. for MQ-9B SeaGuardian drones, with provisions for technology transfer to enhance local manufacturing capabilities. France also remains a key supplier, with India receiving its final batch of Rafale jets, further boosting its aerial capabilities[14]. Investment in Defence Innovation To further drive innovation, initiatives like the Innovations for Defence Excellence (iDEX) and the Technology Development Fund (TDF) have played a critical role. As of 2024, iDEX has supported over 200 startups in contributing to critical military technologies such as AI, drones, and cybersecurity. This has not only boosted the country's technological base but also helped small and medium enterprises (SMEs) integrate into the defence ecosystem.                                      In summary, India’s defence procurement strategy under DAP 2020 has fostered substantial growth in domestic production, exports, and R&D, while balancing global partnerships to acquire key technologies. These developments are positioning India to emerge as a major global player in defence manufacturing and exports. Conclusion The Defence Acquisition Procedure, 2020 is a policy that underscores India’s commitment to achieving self-reliance in defence procurement. By prioritizing indigenous design, development, and manufacturing, DAP 2020 seeks to build a strong domestic defence industrial base, reduce dependency on imports, and enhance India’s strategic autonomy.                         While challenges remain, the progress made under DAP 2020 is encouraging, and with continued government support and industry collaboration, India is well-positioned to become a global hub for defence manufacturing. As the country navigates an increasingly complex security environment, self-reliance in defence procurement will be a crucial determinant of its strategic future. Authors: Pooja Chatterjee  and  Aribba Siddique Footnotes [1]  https://www.mod.gov.in/dod/sites/default/files/DAP2030new_0.pdf [2] https://www.sipri.org/databases/armstransfers [3] https://www.mod.gov.in/sites/default/files/DraftChIAcqnCatPlgIC.pdf [4] https://www.mod.gov.in/dod/sites/default/files/DAP2030new_0.pdf [5] https://pib.gov.in/PressReleasePage.aspx?PRID=1846935 [6]https://pib.gov.in/PressReleasePage.aspx?PRID=2004475#:~:text=Foreign%20Direct%20Investment%20(FDI)%20limit,in%20access%20to%20modern%20technology. [7] https://www.ddpmod.gov.in/dpepp [8] https://mod.gov.in/dod/defence-procurement--manual [9] https://www.meity.gov.in/writereaddata/files/PublicProcurement_MakeinIndia_15June2017.pdf [10] https://idex.gov.in/ [11] https://www.makeinindia.com/defence-industrial-corridors-india [12] https://pib.gov.in/PressReleaseIframePage.aspx?PRID=1989502 [13] https://pib.gov.in/Pressreleaseshare.aspx?PRID=1694844 [14] https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/india-to-procure-31-predator-long-endurance-drones-from-us/article68755738.ece

STRENGTHENING INDIA'S DEFENCE ECOSYSTEM: THE ROLE OF DTIS AND DEFENCE INDUSTRIAL CORRIDORS

Introduction: India’s defence and aerospace sectors have emerged as critical areas of focus under the Make in India initiative,as the country seeks to minimize its reliance on imports by strengthening its domestic manufacturing capabilities. In recent years, the Ministry of Defence has prioritized building a robust manufacturing base for these sectors, culminating  a series of high-profile initiatives. Central to this strategy is the establishment of Defence Industrial Corridors in the states of Uttar Pradesh and Tamil Nadu, which  aims at developing regional hubs for indigenous production. Defence Testing Infrastructure Scheme: A flagship scheme under Make in India is the Defence Testing Infrastructure Scheme (DTIS),  launched in May 2020. With a budget allocation of Rs 400 crore, DTIS aims to establish six to eight Greenfield Defence Testing Facilities over five years. These state-of-the-art testing facilities are designed to meet the needs of India’s growing defence industry, ensuring that domestically produced equipment meets international standards of quality and reliability. The DTIS funding model involves a 75% government grant, with the remaining 25% covered by Special Purpose Vehicles (SPVs) comprised of private Indian companies and state government agencies. One of the key objectives of DTIS is to provide easy access to advanced testing facilities for domestic manufacturers, thereby reducing their reliance on foreign testing infrastructure. By establishing testing centres within the country, DTIS addresses a critical gap in India’s defence ecosystem and allows for faster product validation and optimization. These testing facilities are expected to play a major role in facilitating the development of high-quality defence products, reducing the need for imported testing services, and ultimately contributing to India’s self-reliance in defence manufacturing. Recently, in Uttar Pradesh, the Uttar Pradesh Expressways Industrial Development Authority (UPEIDA) is overseeing three major projects under DTIS as part of the UP-Defence Corridor. The DTIS, in particular, is designed to empower MSMEs and startups by making testing facilities more accessible to smaller industry players. The scheme’s focus on MSMEs is aligned with India’s broader objective of enhancing innovation at the grassroots level, encouraging smaller companies to contribute to the country’s defence capabilities. By providing financial support and access to testing infrastructure, DTIS enables MSMEs to develop high-quality defence products that meet the stringent requirements of the Ministry of Defence. Defence Industrial Corridors The Defence Industrial Corridors (DICs) is  a strategic component of India’s Make in India initiative, focused on reducing dependence on imports and enhancing the domestic defence production ecosystem. The corridors, located in Uttar Pradesh and Tamil Nadu, are designed to attract both Indian and foreign investments in defence manufacturing. They serve as hubs where private companies, government agencies, and research institutions can collaborate on developing advanced defence and aerospace technologies. As India is projected to spend between USD 200-250 billion on defence procurement over the next decade, the DICs play a crucial role in achieving self-reliance by focusing on indigenization. The Ministry of Defence has set an ambitious goal of doubling annual defence production to USD 26 billion by 2025, up from USD 12.5 billion in 2019-20. To reach this target, the corridors aim to boost defence exports, stimulate local economic growth, and generate employment by creating an environment conducive to the development of MSMEs and startups. Objectives of Defence Industrial Corridors The Defence Industrial Corridors serve a variety of objectives that are aligned with India’s broader goals for self-reliance and economic growth. Key objectives include: Economic Growth: The DICs are intended to drive regional economic growth by transforming the requirements of the armed forces into local production capabilities. This strategic focus not only meets national defence needs but also enhances the economic development of the states involved, particularly Uttar Pradesh and Tamil Nadu. Indigenization Requirements: By focusing on indigenization, the DICs contribute to reducing the country’s reliance on imported defence products. The MoD has set specific targets for indigenization, aiming to meet over USD 26 billion worth of equipment requirements by 2025. The DICs play a vital role in fulfilling these targets by supporting the production of indigenous equipment and systems. MSME Development: The corridors encourage the growth of MSMEs by promoting ancillary industries that support defence manufacturing. The MSME sector is vital to India’s industrial landscape, and its participation in defence manufacturing helps to diversify the supply chain and promote innovation. By integrating MSMEs into the defence ecosystem, the DICs provide a platform for smaller companies to contribute to the sector’s growth. Employment and Skill Development: As a catalyst for job creation, the DICs are expected to generate a substantial number of employment opportunities within their respective regions. In addition, they contribute to skill development by promoting training programs aligned with the needs of the defence and aerospace sectors. The DICs are strategically located to maximize India’s manufacturing potential in defence technology, while also contributing to regional economic growth and development. By positioning these corridors in Uttar Pradesh and Tamil Nadu, the government aims to leverage existing infrastructure, skilled labor, and investment incentives to encourage industry stakeholders to set up manufacturing units. The development of these corridors aligns with India’s goal to indigenize 70% of its defence production, a target that not only boosts self-reliance but also stimulates local economies through job creation and skill development. Innovations for Defence Excellence: Beyond the corridors, the Indian government has implemented various supportive schemes to drive innovation and technology development within the defence sector. The Innovations for Defence Excellence (iDEX) initiative is one such program designed to create partnerships between the government and private sector entities, including startups and Micro, Small, and Medium Enterprises (MSMEs). Through iDEX, the Ministry of Defence provides funding and mentorship to small-scale innovators, enabling them to develop solutions that address specific defence challenges. Defence Investors Cell: Another key initiative is the Defence Investors Cell, which acts as a single point of contact for industry stakeholders interested in investing in the Indian defence and aerospace sectors. The Defence Investors Cell provides comprehensive information on investment opportunities, regulatory processes, and government incentives. By addressing queries and facilitating access to vital resources, the cell supports investors and enables them to navigate the complexities of the defence sector. This proactive engagement not only attracts investment but also promotes greater industry participation in defence manufacturing. Conclusion: The approach of the Make in India initiative is evident in the diverse range of schemes and programs that support defence manufacturing. By establishing dedicated industrial corridors, promoting partnerships with private industry, and providing access to advanced testing facilities, the government is laying the groundwork for a self-sufficient defence sector that can meet the country’s security needs. The development of indigenous defence manufacturing capabilities is not only a matter of national security but also a driver of economic growth, as the defence sector creates jobs, promotes innovation, and builds a skilled workforce. In this context, initiatives like DTIS and the Defence Investors Cell are essential to achieving the vision of a self-reliant India. Authors: Pooja Chatterjee  and Aribba Siddique

RBI’s Clarifications on Digital Lending Guidelines: An Analytical Review

This Article discusses the existing Indian fintech ecosystem and its growing concerns that led the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) to issue Guidelines on Digital Lending (Guidelines) in September 2022[1] to bring the burgeoning segment under proper regulation.In February 2023, the RBI came out with detailed set of FAQs[2] to clarify issues relating to the Guidelines. The present article gives a comprehensive update regarding the alterations and definitions made through the FAQs. Scope of Digital Lending When developed, the guidelines provided a narrow notion of digital lending which holds that the process of offering loans is chiefly a digital process that integrates digital tools during and/or after loan origination[3]. But the FAQs[4] elaborated that partial digital processes are also taken to be digital lending as long as the digital technologies prevail in the transaction. For instance, even if some phases are physical interfaces, such a transaction can be categorized as digital lending, so long as the essence of the guidelines is honoured. These measured modifications further emphasize RBI’s intention to regulate hybrid models under the existing regulatory framework in order to safeguard borrowers engaged in digital as well as physical lending models. Grievance Redressal Mechanism An essential part of the Guidelines was the grievance redressal standards where LSPs shall designate grievance redressal officers by which consumers could seek redressal of their grievances[5]. The FAQs[6] introduced a key distinction: the new law only requires LSPs that directly engage borrowers to appoint personnel to act in such capacities. However, responsibilities for complaint management and handling of complaints belong to the Regulated Entities (REs), so the ultimate responsibility returns to the lending institutions. On this ground, the approach is rather finer tuned to strike a balance between the operational requirements of LSPs and the borrower to solve the problem. The Flow of Funds and the Role of LSPs The guidelines herein provided a very strict provision whereby loan disbursals and repayments were strongly required to be made between the bank accounts of offer and acceptor, no third-party involvement was allowed[7]. To this principle, the FAQs[8] provided elaboration: Minimally, Lending Service Providers could not have direct or indirect control over fund flows. Furthermore, though there are many categories exempted from these guidelines, any Payment Aggregator (PA) that acts as an LSP needs to follow all the guidelines. It narrows operational loopholes through which carriers or other intermediaries may evade the stringent controls outlined in the guidelines. Specific scenarios in Loan Products The FAQs addressed several product-specific ambiguities, ensuring consistency across various lending scenarios: EMI Programs on Credit and Debit Cards: It added that EMI programs regulated under the RBI’s Master Directions on Credit and Debit Cards are outside the purview of the new rules. However, anything in credit or debit card-based loan products are included in the digital lending space[9]. Salary-Based Loan Repayments: The FAQs held that it was acceptable for corporate employers to make deductions in respect of Equated Monthly Installments (EMIs) for direct payment to the lending employer. However, it should be mandatory that the LSPs should not have any influence on fund management[10]. Co-Lending Transactions: Limited relief for fund flow between REs was allowed if they are in co-lending and no third-party exercises control over the transaction, according to the RBI[11]. This flexibility was made available to priority sector as well as non- priority sector of loans[12]. These clarifications indicate the RBI’s understanding of variation in digital lending products as well as its attempt to calibrate the proposed regulations based on the variation in operational structures of different online lending platforms. Cooling-Off Period and Borrower Flexibility The initial guidelines required a cooling-off or ‘look-up’ period during which borrowers could withdraw from loans without penalty[13]. The FAQs that introduced operational certainty by enabling lenders to maintain reasonable one-time processing fees provided disclosed upfront in the Key Fact Statement (KFS). It enables the creditors to be paid for real costs they undertake, at the same time maintaining flexibility for borrowers[14]. Reporting of Charges in APR Computation The FAQs offered critical insights into the calculation of the Annual Percentage Rate (APR), which is pivotal to ensuring cost transparency for borrowers: Insurance Charges: The APR can only contain insurance charges which are component features of the loan product. Such differentiation reduces misleading cost disclosures while ensuring comprehensive information disclosed to borrowers[15]. Floating Rate Loans: In the case of loans with variable rates, the APR has to be the rate at the time of loan origination and has to be adjusted every time the rate of interest is changed. Any changes to these cost items must be communicated to the borrowers immediately using the SMS or email[16]. Penal Charges: The RBI again clarified that it had to be established that penal charges be levied on the outstanding loan amount and the amount under default has to act as the cap[17]. Others such as cheque bounce fees may not require annualization but must be presented separately in the KFS on per instance basis[18]. These clarifications also reaffirm the RBI’s efforts to bring costs disclosures to a common platform and reduce borrowers’ confusion and unfairness. Data Privacy and Recovery Practices First, data privacy was a part of the primary guidelines, and the FAQs reinforced the RBI’s promise of borrowers’ protection. In another policy that affected social lending, the RBI clearly prohibited the collection of borrower information that is considered sensitive—such as contact lists or media files without valid reason to do so, and if the borrower’s permission has not been sought[19]. Also, borrowers were granted the right to withdraw consent and to erasure of data. With regard to recovery practices the FAQs permitted cash-based recovery where necessary in the event of default on loans. However, such transactions cannot go unrecorded in the borrowers’ account and any fees owed to the LSPs have to be received straight from the REs and not be recovered along with the proceeds[20]. This makes the evaluation and recovery practices understandably ethical while possessing organisational accountability. Borrower communication enhancement The FAQs expected the lenders to produce important information at different points of loan transaction. The borrowers have to be informed about empanelled recovery agents at the time of loan sanctioning; they have to be informed the name of the particular recovery agency chosen before making an attempt to recover the money[21]. This measure improves the borrowers’ knowledge level and halts illegal recovery actions. Operational Practicality for Lenders It was noted that the present set of FAQs was well balanced between the borrowers and lenders’ interests, as well as being practically implementable. Specificity on some soft use cases, such as co-lending, repayment through salary, and product-specific waivers, helped the RBI make sure that restrictions do not subvert the regulatory purpose without compromising for variables in the digital lending marketplace. Conclusion This is evident from the RBI’s FAQs on Digital Lending wherein the regulatory has gone out of its way to respond to stakeholder concerns without compromising on the values espoused by the better part of digital lending – transparency, one-minute accountability, and protection of consumers. Because of the elaboration of uncertainty within operations and the enhancement of proper sections, the RBI has created a solid legal basis that may encompass numerous prospects of digital operations. These policies do not only shield borrowers from exploitation but also promote a sustainable new generation digital lending. This kind of approach to regulation will be necessary as the sector develops and to ensure that the right blend of innovation and regulation is struck. Author: Mukund Gupta Footnotes [1] https://rbi.org.in/Scripts/NotificationUser.aspx?Id=12382&Mode=0 [2] https://www.rbi.org.in/commonman/English/Scripts/FAQs.aspx?Id=3413 [3] Clause 2.3 [4] FAQ 1 [5] Clause 6.1 [6] FAQ 3 [7] Clause 3 [8] FAQ 7 [9] FAQ 4 [10] FAQ 10 [11] Clause 3 [12] FAQ 11 [13] Clause 8 [14] FAQ 16 [15] FAQ 6 [16] FAQ 5 [17] FAQ 14 [18] FAQ 15 [19] Clause 10.1 [20] FAQ 9 [21] FAQ 17

THE CHANGING PARADIGM OF REAL ESTATE IN INDIA

The real estate sector in India has long been a cornerstone of the country's economic growth, contributing significantly to GDP and employment.However, for decades, the sector was plagued by inefficiencies, lack of transparency, and regulatory gaps, leading to disputes, delays, and distrust among stakeholders. In recent years, the Indian government has undertaken significant reforms to overhaul the legal and regulatory framework governing real estate leading to a new era of accountability, transparency, and consumer protection. This article explores the changing paradigm of real estate laws in India, focusing on key legislative reforms and their implications for the industry. Before the introduction of transformative laws, the Indian real estate sector operated in a largely unregulated environment. Key challenges included lack of title transparency to the buyers coupled with issues such as delayed possession, diversion of funds, and discrepancies in project approvals. The homebuyers had limited legal recourse in case of disputes with developers and the laws varied across states, leading to inconsistencies and confusion for the homebuyers who are fighting against the tall and mighty. Aside from this, there was a huge influx of black money leading to the entire sector being regarded as dubious for unaccounted transactions and corruption, undermining investor confidence. These issues not only affected homebuyers but also deterred foreign and domestic investments, hampering the sector's growth potential. However, recognizing the need for systemic change, the Indian government introduced several landmark reforms to address these challenges. The most significant among these are: The advent of Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 which is one of the most transformative legislation in the history of Indian real estate has been enacted to regulate the sector and protect homebuyers, RERA introduced several provisions such as establishment of Regulatory Authority in each state and union territory to oversee the sector and adjudicate its disputes. Aside this, the Act mandated the registration of Projects with the regulatory authority before advertising or selling them. The Act also brought transparency in transactions and mandated the Developer to disclose project details, including approvals, timelines, and layout plans, on the RERA website. Lastly, the Act mandated the developers to deposit 70% of the funds collected from buyers into a dedicated escrow account to ensure timely completion of projects. All of these provisions have significantly improved accountability and transparency, empowering homebuyers and restoring trust in the sector. In addition, the introduction of GST streamlined the tax structure for real estate transactions, replacing multiple indirect taxes with a unified tax regime. While the initial implementation faced challenges, GST has simplified compliance and reduced the tax burden on developers and buyers. The govt. has also enacted the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Amendment Act, 2016 which has strengthened the legal framework to combat anonymous transactions, which were prevalent in real estate. The law empowers authorities to confiscate benami properties and imposes stringent penalties on offenders, curbing black money and promoting transparency. Lastly, the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 which provides a mechanism for resolving insolvency cases, including those in the real estate sector. Homebuyers are now recognized as financial creditors, giving them a stronger voice in insolvency proceedings against defaulting developers. The Courts in the country have come down heavily on erring developers to ensure that the investor confidence in the real estate market remains intact. The govt. too came in support of homebuyers who lost money investing in real estate projects, the Central Govt. took over the board of Unitech Limited and is committed to ensuring that all jammed projects see the light of the day and investor confidence remain unshaken. The govt. also resolves to make the process of purchasing the immovable property easier for NRIs and foreigners. All of these reforms have had a profound impact on the Indian real estate sector and the delay in delivery of projects has majorly reduced. There is increased transparency in the sector due to mandatory disclosures and regulatory oversight making transactions more transparent and accountable. The reforms have attracted institutional investors and private equity funds, fostering growth and innovation. While the reforms have been largely successful, the main challenge remains with the execution of legislation. The RERA has office bearers are retired civil servants who focuses majorly on policy making and less on dispute resolution. Some states have been slow in implementing RERA, leading to uneven enforcement. There have been numerous cases where despite holding a favourable order from the Court, the litigants have faced challenges with its execution. While challenges persist, the reforms have laid a strong foundation for sustainable growth. As the sector continues to evolve, collaboration amongst the government, industry stakeholders, and consumers will be crucial to realizing the full potential of these transformative changes. The future of Indian real estate looks promising, with the protection of investments and a more robust economy. Author: Adnan Siddiqui

ESG Reporting: An agent of Change or Box-Ticking?

ESG disclosure frameworks convergence is a business accountability tipping point. As the International Sustainability Standards Board (ISSB) leads global convergence, the ultimate question persists: Will this rush toward global convergence increase sustainability practice or miss important regional and sectoral concerns? ESG Transformation: Evolution of Reporting Drivers: ESG reporting has its roots in global climate agreements, evolving from the Kyoto Protocol’s focus on emissions to the Paris Agreement’s broader climate commitments. Initiatives such as the UN Global Compact and COP15 on biodiversity have further shaped corporate disclosure norms, linking transparency with climate resilience, environmental responsibility, and sustainable resource management. Standards Complexity: Companies have been grappling for decades with a siloed framework ecosystem—TCFD for climate risk, TNFD for nature impacts, GRI for overall sustainability metrics, and SASB for industry-level information. Industry-Specific ESG Expectations: A sector-based approach to ESG reporting is gaining traction. The SASB framework, EU Taxonomy, and TNFD recognize that material ESG risks differ across industries (e.g., biodiversity concerns in agriculture vs. carbon footprint in manufacturing). This shift moves ESG from a one-size-fits-all model to industry-customized metrics. Greenwashing Crackdowns and ESG Assurance: With growing concerns about greenwashing, regulatory bodies are introducing stricter scrutiny of ESG claims. The EU Green Claims Directive, India’s SEBI ESG ratings framework, and SEC’s ESG Fund Rules are demanding greater transparency, third-party assurance, and standardized methodologies to validate sustainability claims. Transition from ESG to Impact-Driven Investing: ESG investing is evolving beyond screening for sustainability risks. Impact-driven investing focuses on measurable outcomes, such as carbon reduction, biodiversity restoration, or social equity improvements. Technology’s Role in ESG Data & Reporting: Companies are leveraging automated data collection, real-time ESG tracking, and blockchain-based supply chain verification to enhance the accuracy and reliability of disclosures. This digital transformation is reducing manual reporting burdens and improving data integrity. The Road Ahead: Balancing Ambition with Pragmatism Whereas harmonization guarantees efficiency, the ESG ecosystem can stagnate if fundamental principles are sacrificed. To encourage meaningful progress, future frameworks need to: Prioritize environmental/social rigor over standardized convenience. Align investor-focused metrics with environmental/societal effects (GRI, TNFD, EU regulations). Prioritize meaningful progress over short-term investor narratives. Keep flexibility for sectors like energy or agriculture, whose sustainability challenges differ fundamentally. Global alignment needs to facilitate—not hinder—sustainability innovation. The real proof is if and only if these standards drive quantifiable environmental/social outcomes and not merely enable flash sustainability PR. Let us leave ESG reporting as a flag for transformation and not as a corporate scoreboard.

Rare Earth Roadblock: A Geopolitical Shockwave

Aditya Bhattacharya and Akriti Sharma The modern vehicles today are heavily relied on rare earth magnets as they play a crucial role in their functioning. There are 17 rare earth elements in the Lanthanide series of metals in the periodic table and rare earth magnets are the strongest permanent magnets made from one of these 17 rare earth elements.  Neodymium (Nd-Fe-B) and Samarium Cobalt (SmCo) are the two most common rare earth magnets. They differ from the regular magnets mainly composed of Ferrite, a ceramic material composed mainly of iron (III) oxide. Despite their name “rare earth”, they are not rare and are relatively abundant in the Earth’s crust. As they are found in concentrated amounts often mixed with other metals, making their mining and extraction is very complex and challenging. Rare earth magnets are essential components used in Permanent Magnet Synchronous Motors (PMSMs) in the automotive sector. They are widely used in electric as well as hybrid vehicles due to their high torque, compact size and energy efficiency. These magnets are also found in the internal combustion engine vehicles and are used in systems like electric power steering and other auxiliary components. Although the importance of rare earth metals is often overlooked by the mainstream public, they are not only vital for the automobile industry but also to other sectors like electronics, clean energy and defence. The New Chinese Export Regime & Its Impact on the Automotive Industry in India: China is the largest producer of rare earth metals with over 90% of the refining capacity in the world. This gives China a strategic leverage against the countries that depend on these materials or do not align with its geopolitical interests. As the refining capacity is heavily controlled by China, any disruption in the supply chains of rare earth magnets has immediate consequences on the automotive industry of various countries. Today, India is facing a crisis following the recent restrictions imposed by the Chinese Government in the export permit system for medium and heavy rare earth metals, alloys, magnets, and related products. On 4th April 2025, the Chinese government issued an order imposing restrictions to stop the diversion of magnets to defense and weapon requirements, and mandated that the exporters are required to obtain a license based on the End User certificate (EUC). This further requires the approval from the DGFT and the Ministry of External Affairs along with the endorsement by the Chinese Embassy in India. Through this certificate, the exporters are required to make certain guarantees that these items will not be used for storing, manufacturing, producing or processing weapons of mass destruction. The EUC is then sent to the provincial government in China from where the exporter will produce and export these items and finally goes to China’s Ministry of Commerce for the final approval. Following this new regime adopted by China, approximately 40-50 executives in India from the Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEMs) as well as the Component firms have received visas but still awaiting approval from the China’s Ministry of Commerce for a meeting. However, a broader geopolitical narrative of the current crisis indicates a more strategic motive as China’s imposition of restrictions comes in response to its trade tensions with the U.S. and Trump’s imposition of tariffs on Chinese goods. China has now entered a Bilateral Treaty with the U.S. under which it will supply rare earth magnets to the U.S. The European automotive manufacturers have also received approval for the supply of rare earth magnets, yet China is still restricting its access for India. In the last fiscal year, India sourced over 80% of its 540 tonnes of magnet imports from China. The domestic auto industry in India is now facing a growing risk as these rare magnets form an integral part of the manufacturing of EVs in India and the disruption in its supply chain has slowed down the production of these vehicles, thereby further delaying India’s plan to localise the manufacturing of EVs. Leading car manufacturing companies are seeking assistance from their respective parent companies as the shortage of the rare magnets are heavily affecting the automobile industry in India. The production of Maruti Suzuki’s e-Vitara which was earlier targeted for 26,000-27,000 units in the first half of FY-26, has now been slowed down to below 10,000 units due to the shortage of rare earth magnets. This shortage will further lead to an increase in the cost of manufacturing and the components using these rare earth magnets will now become more expensive. In addition to this, the restrictions imposed by China is also affecting the audio electronics sector and the fast-growing wearables and hearables market in India as approximately 21,000 jobs in the electronics sector in India is at risk. In order to mitigate the current crisis, the Indian Government and the automakers have decided to adopt a twin-pronged strategy that will include short-term as well as long-term measures. In the long run, India is aiming to adopt various measures focussing on reducing the import dependency by accelerating its efforts to explore and mine the rare earth minerals, creating local processing capabilities and introducing recycling initiatives. The short-term measures mostly include strategic inventories and tapping alternative suppliers wherein the automakers will try to diversify the supply chains and at the same time prioritize conserving the rare earth magnets to avoid immediate shortage in case of disruptions in the supply chains. As a part of the short-term measure, India is also launching a Production-linked Incentive (PLI) Scheme worth between ₹3,500 to ₹5,000 crore, which is expected to be notified in the next few days. This scheme aims to promote the domestic manufacturing of rare earth minerals and derived magnets and is a crucial step towards reducing India’s dependence on China. The Centre for Materials for Electronics Technology (C-MET), a research unit under Meity, has also signed a transfer of technology agreement with a firm based in Ahmedabad to produce rare earth magnets. Additionally, one of India’s biggest importers of rare earth magnets also plans to locally manufacture the components used in electric vehicles. However, the Government of India recently expressed concerns about the need to make the rare earth magnets at a commercially competitive rate as the challenge lies in making them economically viable for large-scale production despite having existing technology. Thus, although India is now introducing urgent measures to incentivise the domestic production of rare earth magnets, China’s restrictions has undoubtedly decelerated the automotive industry and severely impacted the production of EVs in India. But at the same time, this critical situation also provides an opportunity for India to strengthen its ‘Make in India’ and “Atmanirbhar Bharat’ initiative and transform itself from an exporter of rare earth magnets to self-reliance by mining and processing these minerals within its own borders.

India – U.S. Trade Negotiations: A Strategic Opportunity for Indian Exporters

The global trade system is undergoing a significant transformation. The U.S. President has sent formal letters to more than 20 countries alerting them of the tariff rates applicable as of August 1, 2025. While nations like China, Mexico, Canada, Bangladesh, and Vietnam are preparing for higher tariffs on their exports to the U.S, one country has so far remained off the list- India. In the absence of a tariff notification from the U.S, India finds itself in an advantageous position that could give Indian exporters a significant competitive edge, particularly in key sectors such as pharmaceuticals, textiles, electronics, and seafood, thereby making Indian goods relatively cheaper and more attractive in the US market. The U.S. remains a crucial destination for many of India’s high-value and labour-intensive exports. Between 2022- 2024, India’s exports to the U.S. were primarily dominated by high-value sectors, including electrical machinery (HS 85), pharmaceuticals (HS 30), precious stones and metals (HS 71), and mechanical appliances (HS 84). Collectively, these sectors accounted for 43.5% of India’s total exports to the U.S. India and the U.S are reportedly close to finalizing a trade agreement, with the shared objective of reaching USD 500 billion in bilateral trade by 2030.[1] This offers a strategic opportunity for India to boost its exports. However, until the trade agreement is announced, the tariff on India continues at 26%, with a 10% baseline duty and 16% additional duty. An analysis by NITI Aayog in its Trade Watch October-December (Q3) FY25 [2] reveals that, in 6 of the top 30 categories, India faces slightly higher average tariffs, up to 3%, than other leading exporters, with the majority of them marginally higher between 0-2%. These specific product categories constitute over 12% of total U.S. imports, highlighting the significant opportunity available for Indian exporters. Moreover, the tariff differences are relatively minor, offering India a strategic opportunity to engage in targeted trade negotiations with the U.S. An examination of tariff data by NITI Aayog also reveals that at the HS 4-digit level across the top 100 products shows that in 80 products, the competing countries are subject to higher tariffs than India. Even in instances where India faces higher tariffs, the differences are generally less than 1% in products that account for 24.5% of India’s exports to the U.S. Thus, the NITI Aayog’s analysis indicate that India enjoys a competitive edge over China in various key sectors, and even though the average tariff differential between the Indian and Chinese exports is 20.5%, it is still in favour of India. In order to boost India’s export regime, the NITI Aayog has recommended strategic policy measures for expanding production-linked incentive (PLI) schemes to more labour-intensive sectors, which include leather, footwear, furniture, and handicrafts, and rationalising industrial electricity tariffs by cutting cross-subsidies and increasing the use of renewable energy.[3] The recommendations also include the launch of targeted schemes under the Export Promotion Mission, with flexible incentives and a more streamlined RoDTEP (Remission of Duties and Taxes on Exported Products) framework to enhance the competitiveness of SMEs.[4] Additionally, simplifying export bill compliance for small exporters through reduced bank fees, simplified documentation for shipments below $1,000, and easing penalties can further help lower transaction costs for MSMEs that have limited export volumes but maintain strong compliance records. Another key recommendation is to expedite the release of Jan Vishwas 2.0 to further improve the legal framework by reducing litigation time and costs, while introducing civil penalties and administrative measures for minor lapses to enhance regulatory efficiency. Further, the exports of shrimps from India account for over 40% of the US shrimp imports, and honey, although a smaller export item for India, constitutes around 25% of US imports. India is also a key supplier of generic pharmaceuticals, and this sector could face significant growth if the Bilateral Trade Agreement between India and the U.S eliminates or reduces both tariffs and non-tariff barriers (NTBs). Non-tariff barriers (NTBs) are a critical area in trade negotiations, and a recent analysis suggests that the removal of NTBs in sectors such as generic pharmaceuticals, Ayush products, and processed organic food could add $1–2 billion in Indian exports to the U.S.[5] The U.S and Indonesia have also signed a new trade deal on July 15, 2025, imposing a 19% tariff on goods from Jakarta, while U.S. exports to Indonesia are to be tariff and non-tariff-barrier free. The U.S. President has also announced that the negotiators from India and the U.S are working towards finalising a deal before the August 1 deadline, which will be along the same lines as the U.S.-Indonesia trade deal. The Federation of Indian Export Organisations (FIEO) is also actively working to maximize this opportunity. It has shortlisted a total of 408 strategically stable and commercially significant products, accounting for more than two-thirds of India’s total exports to the U.S., and has identified over 300 high-potential export items to the U.S.[6] The FIEO is urging the government to seek tariff reductions for products across various sectors such as pharmaceuticals, smartphones, diamonds, textiles, shrimps, etc., highlighting the diversity of India’s export regime.   Analysis: The evolving tariff and trade landscape presents both opportunities as well as challenges for Indian exporters. India’s exclusion from Trump’s tariff list is not an oversight but a deliberate sign of diplomatic progress and an opportunity to improve India’s export margins. However, the tariff threats by the U.S could be viewed as a strategy to expedite the ongoing trade negotiations with India and provide India with an opportunity to safeguard its economic interests and enhance the bilateral trade relations. While production-linked incentives (PLI) have proven effective in sectors such as electronics and pharmaceuticals, extending them to more labour-intensive sectors could boost production and strengthen India’s export capacity. Additionally, by cutting cross-subsidies and increasing the use of renewable energy, India could lower manufacturing costs, which will help in improving India’s export margins. Further, with FIEO’s list of high-potential items for exports to the U.S. and by addressing both tariff and non-tariff barriers, India could emerge as a strong trade partner. Therefore, the growing trade negotiations between India and the U.S. present a strong foundation for India to boost its exports and open up new opportunities for exporters, particularly the SMEs and MSMEs. Even in the presence of minor tariff differentials, India still enjoys a favourable position, as compared to other nations.  Thus, a successful Bilateral Trade Agreement between the two nations is very crucial, as such a treaty would not only aid in resolving the tariff issues but also mark a pivotal step in enhancing India’s trade relationship with the U.S. [1] Press Information Bureau, “India-U.S. Trade Talks in New Delhi Concludes”, March 29, 2025. [2] NITI Aayog, Government of India, “Trade Watch Quarterly”, October-December (Q3) FY25, July 2025. [3] NITI Aayog, Government of India, “Trade Watch Quarterly”, October-December (Q3) FY25, July 2025. [4] ibid [5] The Economic Times, “India's exports still have room to grow even if Trump walks the talk for 10% additional tariff”, ET Online, July 14, 2025. [6] The Economic Times, “Shrimps to smartphones & diamond: FIEO identifies 300 top exports to push for US tariff cuts”, ET Online, July 14, 2025. Authors: Aditya Bhattarcharya, Partner Akriti Sharma, Trainee Associate

When Regulatory Actions Create Fear, Not Compliance: A Critical Analysis of the Recent Press Release on Bogus Claims of Deductions & Exemptions

By Aditya Bhattacharya, Partner & Akriti Sharma, Trainee Associate This article critically examines the recent press release by the Ministry of Finance regarding the crackdown on bogus claims of deduction and exemption by the Income Tax Department. While the department aims to prevent tax evasion and strengthen compliance, the Press Release raises several legal and procedural concerns. This article seeks to address several key gaps in the Press Release, as it lacks clarity in its language and intent. Lastly, the article aims to highlight that a more balanced and transparent approach is required to ensure compliance without compromising the rights of the taxpayers. Tax evasion and tax avoidance present significant challenges to India’s economic growth.  When taxpayers misuse the legal provisions in order to evade taxes, it not only undermines the integrity of the tax system but also results in a substantial loss of revenue for the state. Although it is essential for the Tax Authorities to address such misuse, any regulatory action must be backed by due process of law. On 14th July 2024, the Ministry of Finance issued a press release stating that the Income Tax Department had launched a large-scale verification operation across multiple locations in the country, targeting individuals and entities involved in facilitating fraudulent claims of deductions and exemptions in their Income Tax Returns (ITRs). On a plain reading, and with the rising concern over tax evasion and the misuse of legal provisions, such action appears to be a firm step towards ensuring compliance and safeguarding the integrity of the taxation system. However, a closer look at the press release reveals the lack of clarity in its language and structure, as well as how the circular could be potentially misused by the authorities, harming honest taxpayers. Is Fear the New Face of Tax Compliance? The press release states that deduction provisions such as sections 10(13A), 80GGC, 80E, 80D, 80EE, 80EEB, 80G, 80GGA, and 80DDB are being misused, and taxpayers are fraudulently claiming deductions and exemptions without a valid justification. It is pertinent to mention here that the concept of deductions is interpretative in nature. This means that what the department considers a wrongful claim may not always be intentional fraud. The complexities involved in the deduction provisions often lead to situations wherein taxpayers and the authorities may interpret the same deduction claim differently. Most importantly, it also overlooks the fact that the majority of the taxpayers rely on professionals for filing their ITRs. In such a scenario, honest errors are inevitable, especially when the provisions are complex and interpretative in nature. Thus, the action taken by the Department is not aimed at educating or assisting the taxpayers, but at cautioning them, by creating a sense of fear and uncertainty. The words used are very selective, most particularly the word ‘stern action’. It says that the “Income Tax Department is poised to take stern action against continued fraudulent claims, including penalties and prosecution wherever applicable”. This raises several questions, such as what is meant by ‘stern action’? What exactly does it mean in practice? Will minor or unintentional errors also lead to such action? The lack of a clear definition and ambiguity in the intent behind such actions make them vague and open to interpretation. By using strong language and repeatedly highlighting the search and seizure operations, the Department is also not trying to reduce litigation or enhance compliance, but is trying to warn the taxpayers that anyone making a deduction claim might be subject to ‘stern action’. ‘Trust Taxpayers First’, But Due Process Later? One of the major concerns arising from the press release is the lack of a clear distinction between taxpayers who are intentionally committing fraud and those who are unaware of the deductions and exemption provisions and are often misled by the professionals who file their Income Tax Returns. If the Income Tax Department proceeds with recovery actions and levies penalties, or initiates prosecution without conducting a proper inquiry and establish whether the taxpayer had the actual knowledge or intent, it will result in a gross miscarriage of justice, thereby creating a situation where more litigation will be generated before High Courts on accounts of coercive recoveries by the authorities. The innocent taxpayers will be left with no option but to seek relief before the High Courts and challenge such actions on the grounds of denial of due process, arbitrary treatment, and violation of natural justice. The taxation laws are built on the principles of natural justice, which means that the taxpayers should be given a reasonable time and opportunity to hear and present their case before any penalty and prosecution are imposed. However, the Department fails to address the due procedure for initiating such stern actions. Although the department claims that it expects voluntary compliance from the taxpayers by following the principle of ‘Trust Taxpayers First’, in reality, it is creating a sense of fear and uncertainty amongst the taxpayers. As a result, the taxpayers may gradually lose their trust in the administrative system and avoid claiming deductions that they are legally entitled to, in order to avoid potential scrutiny and unnecessary litigation. On the other hand, the Department also states that many fraudulent returns are being filed using fake or temporary email addresses. The question that arises before us is how the notices will be served to the taxpayers, and how will they respond to such notices if they are not even aware that their returns are under scrutiny. In such circumstances, how does the Department aim to follow the principles of natural justice? Additionally, when a taxpayer makes a wrongful claim, the priority of the Department is “recovery” of the amount from the taxpayer.  In the absence of such a term in the Press release, the Department has tried to sideline the broader objective of tax administration and shift its primary focus to imposing penalties and prosecution against the taxpayers. Furthermore, the press release also indicates that the Department is increasingly relying on advanced technologies, such as artificial intelligence (AI), and ground-level intelligence and third-party sources to identify suspicious patterns in the Income Tax Returns. Although AI tools have proven to be effective in many aspects, the biased nature of the algorithms used in AI and the automated flagging of minor discrepancies will have a significant impact on the taxpayers. Thus, the taxpayers who will be subjected to such scrutiny or penal action are likely to challenge such actions before the judiciary, leading to a surge in litigation in the months ahead. Conclusion As a good tax system is not achieved by creating fear, but by earning the trust of the taxpayers through due process, the approach taken by the Department to curb the misuse of deduction and exemption provisions should be more balanced and fair. There are instances where honest taxpayers have been harassed over minor discrepancies, and by empowering the tax authorities to take 'stern action' without any clear mechanism will further increase the risk of misuse of powers by the authorities. Although, the Department claims to uphold the principle of “Trust Taxpayers First,” in reality, rather than building trust, it has created a sense of fear and uncertainty amongst the taxpayers. Therefore, a system that deters the misuse of provisions and ensures compliance without compromising the rights of the taxpayers is essential. At the same time, there should be a balance between the powers given to the authorities and safeguarding the rights of the honest taxpayers.

Data Privacy Risks for Gaming, Fantasy Sports and Online Platforms under India’s DPDP Regime: Behavioural Profiling, Consent and Compliance

By Aniket Ghosh Introduction: Why Gaming Platforms Sit at the Centre of Privacy Enforcement India’s gaming and interactive entertainment ecosystem comprising online gaming platforms, fantasy sports operators, real-money gaming companies, casual mobile games, esports platforms and gamified social apps has experienced explosive growth. These platforms are no longer passive entertainment providers; they are data-intensive behavioural engines involving major data privacy risks. Every tap, swipe, pause and in-game decision is captured, analysed and monetised. As a result, gaming platforms process some of the most granular behavioural datasets in the digital economy, often involving: Children and young adults Continuous tracking and profiling Psychological engagement mechanisms Cross-platform advertising and monetisation With the enactment of the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 (“DPDP Act”) and the Digital Personal Data Protection Rules, 2025 (“DPDP Rules”), gaming companies now face heightened legal scrutiny, particularly around consent, profiling, children’s data, dark patterns and targeted advertising. Applicability of the DPDP Act to Gaming and Interactive Platforms Platforms Covered The DPDP Act applies to all entities processing digital personal data, including: Online and mobile gaming platforms Fantasy sports and skill-based gaming operators Esports platforms Casual and hyper-casual game developers Social gaming and metaverse platforms Real-money gaming and betting intermediaries Both Indian and offshore platforms offering services to users in India fall within scope. Gaming Companies as Data Fiduciaries Gaming platforms almost invariably qualify as data fiduciaries, as they determine: What user data is collected How gameplay data is analysed How engagement and monetisation strategies are deployed Third parties such as analytics providers, ad-tech platforms, payment processors and cloud service providers operate as data processors, though primary liability remains with the platform. Large gaming platforms may be designated as Significant Data Fiduciaries (SDFs) due to: Scale of user base Volume of behavioural data Involvement of children Use of AI-driven engagement tools Behavioural Data in Gaming: A High-Risk Category What Is Behavioural Data? Gaming platforms routinely collect: Gameplay patterns Reaction times Spending behaviour In-game communications Social interactions Device and location metadata When combined, this data enables deep behavioural profiling, capable of predicting user preferences, vulnerabilities and spending propensity. Why Regulators Are Concerned Behavioural profiling in gaming raises concerns around: Manipulative engagement design Addiction and compulsive behaviour Exploitation of cognitive biases Psychological harm, particularly to minors Under the DPDP Act, such data processing must be lawful, proportionate and purpose-bound – a standard many legacy gaming models struggle to meet. Consent in Gaming: Validity Under the DPDP Act Consent Must Be Real, Not Illusory Gaming platforms often rely on click-wrap agreements, bundled consents, and long, technical privacy policies. Under the DPDP Act, consent must be: Free Informed Specific Unambiguous Capable of withdrawal “Accept to play” models that condition access on broad data permissions risk being treated as coerced consent. DPDP Rules: Notice and Transparency Obligations The DPDP Rules require platforms to disclose: Categories of personal data collected Purpose of processing (including analytics and advertising) Third-party data sharing User rights and withdrawal mechanisms Grievance redressal channels Generic disclosures that do not explain behavioural analytics and profiling are unlikely to withstand scrutiny. Dark Patterns and Manipulative Design in Gaming What Are Dark Patterns? Dark patterns are interface designs that manipulate user behaviour, including: Infinite scroll and loot box mechanics Misleading reward structures Obscured opt-outs Artificial urgency While not explicitly defined in the DPDP Act, such practices undermine free and informed consent. Regulatory Trajectory Gaming platforms are increasingly scrutinised by consumer protection authorities, sectoral regulators, and Courts. Under the DPDP framework, dark patterns may invalidate consent and expose platforms to enforcement action for unlawful data processing. Children’s Data: A Legal Minefield for Gaming Platforms Children Under the DPDP Act Any user below 18 years is a child under the DPDP Act. This is particularly consequential for gaming platforms with: Casual or cartoon-style games School-age user bases Freemium models Parental Consent and Verification Processing children’s data requires: Verifiable parental consent Mechanisms to confirm guardian identity Clear linkage between parent and child Self-declared age gates are insufficient. Prohibition on Tracking and Targeted Advertising The DPDP Act restricts behavioural tracking, profiling and targeted advertising directed at children. This directly impacts: Ad-supported gaming models In-game personalised offers Behaviour-based monetisation strategies Real-Money Gaming, Payments and Financial Data Financial and Transactional Data Real-money gaming platforms process: Payment information Wallet balances Spending patterns This data carries elevated risk due to Fraud potential, addiction concerns, and regulatory overlap with financial laws. Such data must be processed with heightened security and minimal retention. KYC and Identity Data Where KYC is required, platforms must: Limit collection to necessity Clearly disclose purpose Secure data against unauthorised access Repurposing KYC data for marketing or profiling is legally hazardous. Third-Party Sharing and Ad-Tech Risk Gaming platforms frequently integrate with advertising networks, attribution providers, and analytics engines. The DPDP Act places responsibility on the gaming platform to ensure: Processor compliance Contractual safeguards Breach notification obligations Uncontrolled SDKs and plug-ins are a common source of data leakage. Data Breaches and Incident Response Mandatory Reporting Obligations Under the DPDP Act and Rules, gaming platforms must notify the Data Protection Board of India and affected users. This obligation applies even to non-financial harm. Reputational Fallout Data breaches involving children, behavioural data, and payment information are likely to attract disproportionate public and regulatory backlash. Penalties and Enforcement Exposure Monetary Penalties The DPDP Act empowers the Data Protection Board to impose penalties up to INR 250 crore per contravention, considering: Nature of data involved Scale of processing Harm caused Mitigation steps taken Gaming platforms processing children’s or behavioural data face elevated penalty risk.\ Business Impact Beyond penalties, platforms may face: Platform bans or restrictions Loss of advertising partners App store scrutiny Investor concerns For gaming businesses, regulatory action can directly threaten viability. Compliance Roadmap for Gaming Platforms Data Mapping and Risk Assessment: Identify behavioural, financial and children’s data flows. Consent and UX Redesign: Simplify consent journeys and eliminate dark patterns. Children’s Data Controls: Implement robust age-gating and parental consent systems. Vendor and SDK Audits: Review third-party integrations and contracts. Governance and Training: Educate product, design and marketing teams on privacy risks. Conclusion: Sustainable Gaming Requires Responsible Data Practices The DPDP Act and Rules signal a clear regulatory message: behavioural exploitation is not a sustainable business model. Gaming platforms must rebalance innovation with responsibility, particularly where vulnerable users are involved. Platforms that proactively redesign consent, limit profiling and embed privacy-by-design will be best positioned to thrive in India’s evolving digital ecosystem.

ENFORCEMENT DILEMMA AND LACK OF POLICY: BLOCKCHAIN ARBITRATION, AN INDIAN PERSPECTIVE

Authored by Athira T S, Associate Partner Co-authored by Pragya Mehta, 3rd year - BA LLB(Hons), Maharashtra National Law University, Mumbai INTRODUCTION Despite the growing body of the academic discourse engaging with blockchain arbitration, the same remains largely theoretical, leaving several critical gaps between conceptual promise and practical implementation unaddressed. With a userbase of about 300,000 transactions per day, 1 the blockchain technology has slowly moved beyond experimentation. This technology can be simply defined as a tool which operates on a distributed network of nodes, each maintaining an immutable record of transactions.2 While its mainstream introduction to the world was through Bitcoin in 2009,3 its operation is dependent on decades-old technology: public-private key encryption, consensus mechanisms, and peer-to-peer networks.4 What makes the integration of this technology difficult is its decentralized nature5 and the subsequent difficulty to decide the jurisdiction of disputes involving transactions using this technology. While India has made several attempts to regulate blockchain transactions, its enforcement still remains a hurdle. These attempts include the introduction of taxation of income on Virtual Digital Asset (“VDA”) transactions and withholding taxes in the Indian Income Tax Act,6 Travel Rule related directions by Indian Computer Emergency Response Team (CERT-In)7 and numerous actions on VDA Service Providers by Law Enforcement Agencies8 and PMLA Regulations by Financial Intelligence Unit-India (FIU-IND).9 Many blockchain activities are executed or structured offshore while producing clear economic and consumer harms within India which makes the effects based approach crucial. This approach allows regulatory and judicial attention to shift from the location of the malicious entity to the location where the consequences are felt. This article hence, firstly, examines the challenges posed by the resolution of blockchain-based arbitration disputes in India and analyses how existing statutory mandates hinder their effective functioning. It further transcends these limitations by explaining how this enables malicious entities to evade regulatory scrutiny by leveraging decentralised and foreign-seated dispute resolution mechanisms. Further, the article reviews the extent to which Indian courts have engaged with such disputes, along with providing a discussion on broader international frameworks. It subsequently examines the “effects doctrine” and its potential application to international arbitration disputes involving blockchain systems. Lastly, it provides suggestions which may be made to the statutory framework in India to incorporate the complexities of blockchain in the legal regime. 1.https://www.blockchain.com/explorer/charts 2.chromeextension://kdpelmjpfafjppnhbloffcjpeomlnpah/https://ijirl.com/wpcontent/uploads/2023/12/Navigating-Blockchain-Disputes-Arbitrations-Role-In-The-Future-Of-DecentralizedIndustries.Pdf https://www.cmegroup.com/articles/2025/celebrating-bitcoins-16th-birthday-a-look-at-achievements-in-thecrypto-space.html 4.Primavera De Filippi& Aaron Wright, Blockchain and the Law: The Rule of Code (HUP 2018) 14-20. 5.https://www.researchgate.net/publication/270802537_Is_Bitcoin_a_Decentralized_Currency 6.chrome-extension://kdpelmjpfafjppnhbloffcjpeomlnpah/https://incometaxindia.gov.in/tutorials/72.tds-onpayment-for-the-transfer-of-virtual-digital-assets.pdf 7.https://www.pib.gov.in/PressReleasePage.aspx?PRID=1820904®=3&lang=2#:~:text=in%20incident%20an alysis.To%20address%20the%20identified%20gaps%20and%20issues%20so%20as%20to,trusted%20Internet%20in %20the%20country. 8 https://www.thehindu.com/sci-tech/technology/how-are-cryptocurrency-exchanges-in-india-vetting-customersexplained/article70508477.ece#:~:text=Cryptocurrency%20exchanges%20in%20India%20use,%2DYour%2DCl ient/Customer 9 https://fiuindia.gov.in ISSUES INVOLVED Blockchain arbitration revolutionizes dispute resolution by seamlessly integrating smart contract technology with traditional arbitration processes. When a dispute arises, it is automatically logged onto the blockchain, and proceedings on digital platforms (eg. Kleros, Argon Court)10 get initiated. While these platforms function as self-executing dispute mechanisms, their decentralized nature places them in tension with India’s platform-centric regulatory framework. The new Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act, 11 introduces compliance requirements for any digital platform handling Indian user data; however, Decentralized Autonomous Organisations (DAOs), which often underpin such platforms, remain unrecognised under Indian law. Under the Cox & Kings (2023) ruling,12 binding a pseudonymous non-signatory requires proving "mutual intention" through conduct. In India, this usually requires showing a "single economic reality" between a known signatory and a pseudonymous party.13 Establishing this link for decentralized entities (like a DAO or a pseudonymous wallet holder) is legally complex. Decentralized finance disputes, stemming from smart contract failures, fraud (like rug pulls), platform crashes, and disagreements over collateral/liquidations, then become difficult to adjudicate due to the absence of a clearly identifiable counterparty. 14 This absence of legal recognition and compliance certainty has a direct bearing on jurisdictional choices in blockchain arbitration. Arbitration disputes involving pseudonymous parties, particularly in the context of Web 3.0 and blockchain, are predominantly foreign-seated (e.g., Singapore, London, or Zurich).15 Blockchain records, being decentralized and often pseudonymous, frequently face evidentiary objections that are more easily bypassed in tech-friendly foreign seats like Singapore. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pasl Wind Solutions Private Limited vs GE Power Conversion India Private16 noted that parties often choose a foreign seat to have two layers of protection: the ability to challenge an award in the foreign seat's courts and again resist enforcement in India. Moreover, evidentiary standards under Indian law present an independent obstacle. Indian courts often require certificates under Section 63 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA)17 for electronic records, which assumes a centralized authority to verify the record's integrity. Even if evidence is admitted and an award is rendered, executing a decree in India against a pseudonym is difficult because under Indian law, an arbitral award must be enforced through a court as a civil decree under Section 36 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. 18 Indian courts lack a mechanism to order a blockchain network provider or an immutable smart contract to reverse or perform a transaction, making domestic enforcement of on-chain dispute resolution practically impossible. Disputes where the consideration is a private cryptocurrency (as opposed to the RBI's E-Rupee) face risks of being declared void under Section 23 of the Contract Act, 187219 for being contrary to public policy. Beyond legal uncertainty, India’s fiscal treatment of virtual digital assets further incentivizes parties to exit domestic adjudication mechanisms. The 30% flat tax on Virtual Digital Assets (VDA) and 1% TDS on every transfer in India20 incentivizes parties to keep the entire dispute and settlement process in "crypto-friendly" jurisdictions like Dubai or Singapore to avoid triggering local tax reporting or seizure during enforcement. 10 https://vidhilegalpolicy.in/blog/kleros-is-crypto-based-dispute-resolution-thefuture/#:~:text=A%20decentralised%20dispute%20resolution%20mechanism,cooperative%20society%20regist ered%20in%20France. 11chromeextension://kdpelmjpfafjppnhbloffcjpeomlnpah/https://www.meity.gov.in/static/uploads/2024/06/2bf1f0e9f04e6f b4f8fef35e82c42aa5.pdf 12 2023 INSC 1051 13 http://scconline.com/blog/post/2023/03/23/the-group-of-companies-doctrine-in-india-antithetical-to-freeconsent/ 14 https://www.nortonrosefulbright.com/en/inside-disputes/blog/202409-decentralised-finance-defi-litigationrisk-and-safeguards   Exploitation by malicious entities   Malicious entities leverage this lack in policy by employing strategies of evading identification and taking advantage of the procedural friction in India. This has led to an increase in the number of cases of human fraud and the facilitation of criminal activity. Scammers continue to adopt and innovate, with the cryptocurrency industry witnessing over $3.4 billion in theft in 2025. 21 Overall, through personation tactics, a staggering 1400% year-over-year growth22 has been seen.   In India, malicious entities therefore choose foreign arbitration seats like Singapore, Dubai or the UK which grants them a veneer of legitimacy. The execution of these awards against any pseudonymous entities is impossible to execute in India. They cause financial damage in the state and then tie it up in enforcement for years. In cases of insolvency, bad actors take advantage of the practical void present due to Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 201623 and proceed with foreign seated arbitrations to siphon off global assets of a debtor and bypass Indian creditor protections. Moreover, Section 2(2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act199624 states that the supervisory power of Indian courts only applies where the place of arbitration is in India. Section 4425 defines a foreign award as related to differences between persons. Due to the pseudonymous nature of parties, Indian courts find it difficult to identify it as a person to execute a decree. In the process, the scammers swiftly move funds across different blockchains or fully decentralized exchanges (DEXs), where tracing is extremely difficult, making asset recovery nearly impossible.   15 https://academic.oup.com/ulr/article/30/3/398/8254042 16 https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2021/08/07/foreign-arbitral-seat/ 17 chrome-extension://kdpelmjpfafjppnhbloffcjpeomlnpah/https://www.mha.gov.in/sites/default/files/2024- 04/250882_english_01042024_0.pdf 18 chrome-extension://kdpelmjpfafjppnhbloffcjpeomlnpah/https://www.mha.gov.in/sites/default/files/2024- 04/250882_english_01042024_0.pdf 19 Section 23 of the Contract Act 20 chrome-extension://kdpelmjpfafjppnhbloffcjpeomlnpah/https://incometaxindia.gov.in/tutorials/72.tds-onpayment-for-the-transfer-of-virtual-digital-assets.pdf 21 https://www.chainalysis.com/blog/crypto- scams2026/#:~:text=In%202025%2C%20cryptocurrency%20scams%20received,more%20effectively%20than%20ev er%20before. 22 https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c93w30gl5jno   RECOGNITION BY INDIAN AND FOREIGN COURTS   In 2018, RBI circular26 barred banks from servicing crypto exchanges which resulted in mass shutdowns and relocation of exchanges. Subsequently, in the case of Internet and Mobile Association of India v. RBI (2020)27 the Hon’ble Supreme Court struck down the RBI ban as disproportionate. But the RBI still did not recognise cryptocurrency as legal tender. Subsequently, in Nirod Kumar Das v. State of Orissa (2023)28 the court observed that cryptocurrencies do not fall within the statutory definitions of “money” or “deposits” under existing Indian laws. However, in 2025, the Madras High Court verdict in Rhutikumari v. Zanmai Labs Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.29 concluded that cryptocurrency constitutes a property under the Indian Income Tax Act. In the International Conference on Arbitration in the Era of Globalisation held in Dubai,30 Hon’ble Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, former judge of the Supreme Court of India made reference to smart contracts in his speech to demonstrate the technological advancements in the sphere of commercial transactions and identified arbitration as the means to resolve disputes relating to smart contracts. This hesitation in India stands in sharp contrast to the increasing international acceptance and judicial accommodation of blockchain arbitration mechanisms. In 2021, a pivotal moment was reached in the realm of blockchain arbitration when an arbitral award that incorporated blockchain technology was enforced by a Mexican court.31 The case involved Kleros, a decentralised application designed for swift, automated online dispute resolution through which a dispute was resolved. In UK, under the remit of the UK Digital DR Rules,32 disputes relating to smart contracts, can be resolved without the interference of the courts via an automatic dispute resolution process. In Fetch.ai Ltd v Persons Unknown, 33 the English courts granted injunctions to trace misappropriated crypto assets. The landmark case of Hangzhou Huatai Yimei Culture Media Co. Ltd. v. Shenzhen Daotong Technology Development Co. Ltd., 34 decided by the Hangzhou Internet Court in 2018, marked the first judicial recognition of blockchain evidence in China. The High Court of New Zealand, in the case of Ruscoe v Cryptopia, recognized the significance of the internal ledger of Cryptopia, a cryptocurrency exchange, specifically its internal structured query language database, which keeps a definitive record of cryptocurrency transactions and holdings.35 The Hong Kong Court of First Instance, in the Gatecoin case, 36 recognized the significance of the internal Exchange Ledger maintained by Gatecoin as a record of customer transactions and balances. Lastly, in, United States v. Ulbricht, 37 the founder of Silk Road was convicted on multiple counts, in part due to blockchain-based financial records showing transfers of Bitcoin used for illegal purchases. Regulatory bodies like the Virtual Asset Regulatory Authority38 have also introduced guidelines that seamlessly incorporate arbitration into crypto governance frameworks. Additionally, the Abu Dhabi Global Market39 and the Dubai International Financial Centre40 have established mechanisms that facilitate blockchain arbitration, showcasing how proactive and robust regulatory infrastructures can effectively address the complexities of emerging technologies.   23 Section 14 of the IBC 24 Section 2(2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 25 Section 44 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 26 https://www.rbi.org.in/commonman/English/scripts/Notification.aspx?Id=2632 27 https://www.sebi.gov.in/enforcement/orders/mar-2020/internet-mobile-association-of-india-vs-rbi_51143.html 28 https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2024/05/06/orissa-high-court-grants-bail-cryptocurrency-ponzi-schemecase/ 29 2025:MHC:2437 30 https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/justice-dy-chandrachud-arbitration-international-conference-litigationsystem-smart-contracts-194521#:~:text=Sohini%20Chowdhury,arbitration%20has%20become%20inseparable... 31 https://indiacorplaw.in/2022/06/14/blockchain-arbitration-in-india-adopting-the-hybrid-model-envisaged-bymexican-kleros-case/     HOW DOES THE EFFECTS DOCTRINE BECOME RELEVANT   In the context of decentralised, and technologically mediated disputes, the “effects doctrine” assumes particular significance as a jurisdictional tool for addressing harms that transcend territorial boundaries. Also known as the ‘consequence’ or ‘terminatory’ theory, 41 the principle of ‘effects doctrine’ is where an act is done abroad and the criminal effect is produced in the State, the crime is taken to be committed within that territory. Indian courts have adopted an “effects-based” jurisdictional approach in online disputes. In Google India (P) Ltd. v. Visaka Industries42 it was stated that a court can assert jurisdiction over foreign entities if their actions produce tangible effects in India. The Court, relying on the decision of the Bombay High Court in Zanmai Labs v. Bitcipher Labs LLP, 43 also took the view that the holder of the crypto-asset owed a fiduciary duty to the owner of such asset. However, through Art 1 of the New York Convention,44 only a few foreign arbitral awards are enforceable in the country. While there have been certain exceptions, like the case of Transocean Shipping Agency v. Black Sea, 45 where India accepted an award from Ukraine despite not being on the list, India still remains strict. Both English and American courts have exercised this kind of extra-territorial jurisdiction. Especially with regard to American Antitrust Law, the Sherman Act and the Federal Trade Commission Act are applicable over purely extraterritorial foreign trade activity only if the defendant‘s conduct has direct, substantial, and reasonably foreseeable effect‘ on either United States‘ domestic trade, or, United States‘ import trade, or, export trade of a person engaged in United States‘ export trade. 46 The Alcoa case established a two-pronged test for application of the effects doctrine, i.e., firstly, the performance of the foreign agreement must be shown to have some effect in the US, and secondly, the effect must have been so intended. After the United States, Germany had been the harbinger of its acceptance by incorporating the doctrine into §130(2) of the German Act against Restraints on Competition. 47 Under the Indian criminal law, Section 1 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita48 embodies the effects doctrine, which reads as under: “(5) The provisions of this Sanhita shall also apply to any offence committed by - (a) any citizen of India in any place without and beyond India; (b) any person on any ship or aircraft registered in India wherever it may be; (c) any person in any place without and beyond India committing offence targeting a computer resource located in India.”   It is well settled that where a sub-standard article is sold and an offence is committed, the place where the same is marketed will equally have jurisdiction to try an offence against the manufacturers as well as the distributors.49 The Cyber Crime Convention of the Council of Europe50 prescribes for the issue of jurisdiction in Article 22.51 It requires that every membernation should adopt legislative measures to establish jurisdiction over any offence established under the Convention, when the offence is committed in its territory. In India, the Information Technology Act delves into the issue of applicable law in computer crimes. It clarifies that any act which is committed either within or outside India would be illegal if it is an offence under the Act.   Section 75 of the Act reads as under: Act to apply for offence or contravention committed outside India: 1) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (2), the provisions of this Act shall apply also to any offence or contravention committed outside India by any person irrespective of his nationality.   2) For the purposes of sub-section (1), this Act shall apply to an offence or contravention committed outside India by any person if the act or conduct constituting the offence or contravention involved a computer, computer system or computer network located in India.   The above two provisions make it clear that the offence, though committed outside India, is punishable in India. In cyber and competition law, anonymity does not defeat jurisdiction if domestic effects exist. Under competition law, a blockchain can be classified as an "enterprise" or its participants as a "body of individuals", 52 making them amenable to the law despite their pseudonymous status.   chrome-extension://kdpelmjpfafjppnhbloffcjpeomlnpah/https://www.4pumpcourt.com/wpcontent/uploads/2021/09/Digital-Dispute-Resolution-Rules-r.pdf https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/D-106- 1937?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&firstPage=true https://english.court.gov.cn/2019-12/04/c_766707.htm David Ian Ruscoe and Malcolm Russell Moore Versus Cryptopia Limited (In Liquidation) [2020] NZHC 728, CIV-2019-409-000544. https://www.grantthornton.co.nz/globalassets/1.-member-fir ms/new-zealand/pdfs/cryptopia/civ-2019-409-000544---ruscoe-and-moore-v-cryptopia-limited-in -liquidation.pdf (accessed on 11 October 2025). Gatecoin Limited (in liquidation) and The Companies (Winding Up and Miscellaneous Provisions) Ordinance (Cap. 32), The High Court of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region Court of First Instance, HCCW 18/2019 [2023] HKCFI 914. Available: https://legalref.judiciary.hk/lrs/com mon/ju/loadPdf.jsp?url=https://legalref.judiciary.hk/doc/judg/word/vetted/other/en/2019/HCCW0 00018_2019.docx&mobile=N (accessed on 20 August 2025). chrome-extension://kdpelmjpfafjppnhbloffcjpeomlnpah/https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/17/17- 950/24860/20171222095855755_Ulbricht%20cert%20petition.pdf https://www.vara.ae/en/ https://www.adgm.com/ https://www.difc.com/ 41.chromeextension://kdpelmjpfafjppnhbloffcjpeomlnpah/http://www.iclr.in/assets/pdf/ICLR%20Volume%201%20(Third %20Article).pdf     Application to Blockchain arbitration   Applying the effects doctrine to blockchain arbitration permits Indian courts to target on-chain conduct that produces real, foreseeable harms within India. The doctrine supports limited, effects-based judicial intervention without converting India into the supervisory seat. If courts intervene only where the effect is substantial, direct and reasonably foreseeable, it will preserve party autonomy and international enforcement expectations under instruments like the New York Convention. This preserves the BALCO territorial framework53 which states that India remains neutral and not attempt to become the supervisory seat while addressing domestic harm. By focusing on the impact within India, courts can utilize Section 63(4) of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA), 202354 to admit tamper-proof blockchain records as reliable evidence of harm occurred within the country. Courts in jurisdictions like England and Wales, Ireland, and the Cayman Islands frequently utilize Norwich Pharmacal Orders (NPOs)55 and Bankers Trust Orders (BTOs)56 to unmask anonymous participants in decentralized networks. A similar framework could also be developed in India to unmask any wrongdoers and act against pseudonymous entities.   SUGGESTIONS AND WAY FORWARD   The Draft Arbitration and Conciliation Bill, 2024 57 which is largely based on the recommendations from the T.K. Viswanathan Expert Committee58 has laid down the groundwork for emerging judicial trends and integrating blockchain and pseudonymous transactions into the Indian legal system. The Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY)59 has developed the National Blockchain Framework (NBF)60 to provide a unified architecture for deploying blockchain solutions across various sectors.61 An indigenous and modular platform named Vishvasya Blockchain Stack62 allows government entities to deploy blockchain-based applications without the need to create or manage their own infrastructure. The stack is deployed across National Informatics Centres (NICs) and is built on a permissioned blockchain, ensuring that only verified and authorized participants can join or validate transactions. While this framework is yet to be enforced, under the current law, the identification of parties is critical for the enforcement of an arbitration agreement. For this an amendment of Section 2 of the act63 to include a definition of "Digital Identity" or "Pseudonymous Party," recognizing that a wallet address or a decentralized identifier (DID) can represent a legal "person" for the purposes of arbitration is needed. Moreover, including "self-executing code" within the definition of a written arbitration agreement under Section 7(4)64 as having the same legal weight as signed, written agreements would make the regulation of these disputes much easier. Recognition of digital awards or “on-chain blockchain awards” provided they meet a high standard of security could also help in the reduction of such disputes. While private blockchains may still require manual certification, public, decentralized ledgers (such as Bitcoin, Etherium) should be granted a “presumption of integrity" due to their immutable nature. A crucial reform that is much needed is the inclusion of local arbitration clauses for any blockchain protocol that might end up impacting Indian users on which Indian courts may exercise supervisory jurisdiction in line with Indian public policy. Moreover, as has been suggested by the T. K. Vishwanathan Committee Report, a separate law is much needed for enforcement of certain foreign awards to suit India’s local conditions while promoting internation arbitration.     https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2019/12/11/google-india-fails-to-gain-protection-under-section-79-ofthe-it-act-2000-to-face-trial-in-a-2008-defamation-case/ https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2025/10/29/madras-hc-crypto-currency-is-property-that-can-be-held-intrust/ 44 Art 1 of the New York Convention, Transocean Shipping Agency v. Black Sea EFFECTS DOCTRINE: A jurisdictional study of USA, EU and India, Anindita Jaiswal § 130 (2) of the German Act against Restraints on Competition Section 1 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita State of Punjab v Nohar Chand, (1984) 3 SCC 512; State of Rajasthan v Rajesh Medical Agencies. 1987 SCC Supp 242. Cyber Crime Convention of the Council of Europe Article 22Cyber Crime Convention of the Council of Europe https://www.taxmann.com/research/competition-law/top-story/105010000000023144/blockchain-technologyand-competition-law-an-analysis-of-the-legal-regime-in-india-experts-opinion (2012) 9 SCC 552 Section 63(4) of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA), 2023 https://www.harneys.com/our-blogs/offshore-litigation/securing-norwich-pharmacal-relief-against-a-digitalasset-exchange-a-legal-milestone-in-assetrecovery/#:~:text=In%20a%20recent%20matter%20our,future%20handling%20of%20similar%20cases. https://www.lexisnexis.co.uk/legal/guidance/bankers-trust-orders https://www.pib.gov.in/pressreleaseiframepage.aspx?PRID=2066081®=3&lang=2 chrome-extension://kdpelmjpfafjppnhbloffcjpeomlnpah/https://www.scobserver.in/wpcontent/uploads/2025/02/report-of-the-expert-committee-members-on-arbitration-law-2-526205.pdf https://www.meity.gov.in/ https://www.pib.gov.in/PressReleasePage.aspx?PRID=2182023®=3&lang=2 https://www.pib.gov.in/PressNoteDetails.aspx?NoteId=155672&ModuleId=3®=3&lang=2 https://www.pib.gov.in/PressReleasePage.aspx?PRID=2051934®=3&lang=2 chromeextension://kdpelmjpfafjppnhbloffcjpeomlnpah/https://www.indiacode.nic.in/bitstream/123456789/21922/1/the_ arbitration_and_conciliation_act%2C_1996_act_no._26_of_1996.pdf Section 7(4)     CONCLUSION   Blockchain arbitration, while still an upcoming field, is in a dire need to be regulated by the Indian legislative framework. With its rapid growth seen since 2009, a systematic framework for the protection of Indian consumers while balancing international principles is much needed, an incorporation of the effects doctrine in arbitration as well as the legal recognition of cryptocurrency and its trading platforms would provide much needed legitimacy and confidence to the consumers and promote the growth of crypto trading in India. Recognising the inherently decentralised and cross-border nature of blockchain disputes, the adoption of the effects doctrine would provide a workable jurisdictional basis by allowing India to respond to harms and consequences experienced within its territory, even when the underlying activity originates elsewhere. A coherent regulatory approach that integrates jurisdictional tools like the effects doctrine alongside formal recognition of crypto-assets would promote legal certainty, encourage responsible innovation,

Data Privacy Compliance in Digital Lending & Financial Services

By Aniket Ghosh Navigating Consent, Purpose Limitation and Regulatory Expectations Under India’s Data Protection Regime Introduction: Why Data Privacy Has Become a Board-Level Issue in BFSI India’s banking, financial services and insurance (“BFSI”) sector particularly digital lending platforms, NBFCs, fintech intermediaries, payment aggregators and neo-banks, operates at the intersection of high-velocity data collection and intense regulatory oversight. Credit underwriting, fraud prevention, customer onboarding, collections, and analytics are fundamentally data driven. With the enactment of the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 (“DPDP Act”) and the subsequent notification of the Digital Personal Data Protection Rules, 2025 (“DPDP Rules”), data privacy compliance has moved from a peripheral IT concern to a core legal, governance and reputational risk. For BFSI entities, the implications are particularly acute: Financial data is inherently sensitive and high-value. Digital lending models depend on continuous data processing across multiple third parties. Enforcement exposure is magnified due to scale, automation and consumer-facing operations. This article examines how India’s data protection framework applies to digital lending and financial services, identifies sector-specific compliance challenges, evaluates enforcement and penalty risks, and sets out a practical mitigation roadmap for regulated entities and fintech. The Legal Framework: DPDP Act and DPDP Rules – What BFSI Must Know Scope and Applicability The DPDP Act applies to the processing of digital personal data where: The data is collected in digital form; or Data initially collected in non-digital form is subsequently digitised. BFSI entities process personal data at every stage of the customer lifecycle including KYC, credit assessment, loan servicing, collections, grievance redressal, and analytics, bringing most operations squarely within the Act’s scope. The law has extraterritorial reach: offshore fintechs or group entities processing Indian customers’ data in connection with goods or services offered in India may also be covered. Key Concepts Relevant to Financial Services Data Principal: The individual customer, borrower, guarantor, or user whose personal data is processed. Data Fiduciary: Banks, NBFCs, fintech platforms, lenders, payment intermediaries determining the purpose and means of processing. Data Processor: KYC vendors, credit bureaus, cloud providers, call-centre operators, analytics vendors, collection agencies. Significant Data Fiduciary (“SDF”): Certain BFSI entities may be notified as SDFs based on volume of data, risk to individuals, and use of new technologies, triggering enhanced compliance obligations. Consent and Notice: The Core Compliance Challenge in Digital Lending Consent as the Primary Ground Under the DPDP Act, consent is the default legal basis for processing personal data. Consent must be: Free Specific Informed Unconditional Unambiguous Given through clear affirmative action For digital lenders, this presents immediate friction with legacy onboarding flows. Notice Requirements Under the DPDP Rules The DPDP Rules prescribe mandatory notice disclosures, including: Categories of personal data being collected Purpose of processing Details of data fiduciaries and processors Rights of data principals Grievance redressal mechanism Method to withdraw consent Bundled, vague or omnibus notices commonly used by fintech apps are unlikely to meet the standard. Dark Patterns and Regulatory Scrutiny Pre-ticked boxes, forced consent, and “take-it-or-leave-it” app permissions may be construed as invalid consent. In digital lending where users often have limited bargaining power this creates heightened enforcement risk. Purpose Limitation and Data Minimisation: Rethinking Credit Models Purpose Limitation Personal data may be processed only for the purpose specified in the notice or for purposes reasonably incidental thereto. For BFSI players, common risk areas include: Using KYC or transactional data for unrelated marketing Repurposing data for cross-selling without fresh consent Sharing borrower data across group entities Data Minimisation The DPDP Act mandates collection of only such data as is necessary for the stated purpose. In practice, digital lenders often collect: Full contact lists Location data Device metadata Behavioural analytics Unless clearly justified and disclosed, such practices may violate the minimisation principle. Third-Party Sharing and Vendor Risk in BFSI Data Processors and Downstream Liability The DPDP Act places primary liability on the data fiduciary, even where processing is outsourced. Common BFSI processors include: KYC and AML service providers Credit bureaus Call-centre and collection agencies Cloud service providers The DPDP Rules require contractual safeguards, including: Clear processing instructions Confidentiality obligations Security standards Breach reporting timelines Collections and Recovery Agents: A High-Risk Area Aggressive recovery practices that are often outsourced, have already attracted scrutiny from RBI and courts. Under the DPDP framework, misuse of borrower data by agents can result in direct liability for the lender. Cross-Border Data Transfers: Regulatory Uncertainty Continues The DPDP Act permits cross-border transfers to countries notified by the Central Government. While the framework is more liberal than earlier drafts, BFSI entities must still: Track data flows across jurisdictions Ensure overseas processors comply with Indian standards Monitor future government notifications Global fintechs operating hub-and-spoke data models must reassess their architecture. Data Breaches and Incident Response: From IT Issue to Legal Crisis Mandatory Breach Notification The DPDP Act and Rules require reporting of personal data breaches to: The Data Protection Board of India Affected data principals This applies regardless of fault, intent, or scale. BFSI-Specific Exposure Financial data breaches can result in: Identity theft Financial fraud Regulatory action by multiple authorities Class-action style litigation Severe reputational damage A delayed or poorly handled breach response can compound liability. Enhanced Obligations for Significant Data Fiduciaries If notified as an SDF, BFSI entities must: Appoint a Data Protection Officer based in India Conduct Data Protection Impact Assessments (DPIAs) Undertake periodic audits Implement heightened governance measures Large NBFCs, digital lending platforms, and payment intermediaries are prime candidates for SDF classification. Penalties and Enforcement Risk Monetary Penalties The DPDP Act empowers the Data Protection Board to impose penalties up to INR 250 crore per violation, depending on: Nature and gravity of breach Duration and recurrence Type of personal data affected Mitigation measures taken Reputational and Commercial Impact Beyond statutory penalties, BFSI entities face: Loss of customer trust Regulatory action by sectoral regulators Contractual defaults Investor and partner concerns Data protection failures can materially impact valuation and market position. Practical Compliance Roadmap for BFSI Entities Data Mapping and Inventory: Identify what personal data is collected, from whom, for what purpose, and where it flows. Consent Architecture Redesign: Revamp onboarding journeys, notices, and consent mechanisms to meet DPDP standards. Vendor and Processor Contracts: Update agreements to include DPDP-compliant clauses and audit rights. Internal Governance: Appoint privacy leads, define escalation protocols, and align compliance with RBI and SEBI frameworks. Breach Response Playbooks: Create legally vetted incident response plans with defined timelines and responsibilities. Training and Culture: Ensure product, tech, compliance, and customer-facing teams understand privacy obligations. Conclusion: From Compliance Burden to Competitive Advantage For the BFSI sector, data privacy compliance is no longer optional, cosmetic, or deferrable. The DPDP Act and Rules represent a structural shift in how financial institutions must view customer data not as a freely exploitable asset, but as a regulated trust. Entities that proactively embed privacy into product design, governance and vendor management will not only mitigate enforcement risk but also build durable consumer confidence in an increasingly competitive digital financial ecosystem.

DPDP Act Compliance for Tax and Accounting Firms in India: Data Protection, Cloud Risks and Professional Confidentiality

By Aniket Ghosh Introduction: When Confidentiality Meets Statutory Data Protection Tax advisors, chartered accountants, auditors and professional services firms operate on trust. Clients share highly sensitive financial and personal information with the expectation that professional confidentiality will protect it. However, the shift to cloud accounting, remote audits, AI tools and global delivery models has transformed how client data is collected, stored and shared. Information that was once confined to physical files now moves across digital systems and jurisdictions. With the introduction of the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 (DPDP Act) and the DPDP Rules, 2025, confidentiality is no longer governed only by professional ethics. It is now a statutory obligation to fulfill DPDP compliance which is backed by penalties and regulatory enforcement. For professional services firms, this means confidentiality must be supported by structured, documented and demonstrable data protection compliance. Applicability of the DPDP Act to Professional Services Firms Entities Within Scope The DPDP Act applies to any entity that processes digital personal data. This includes chartered accountancy firms, audit and assurance practices, tax advisory and compliance firms, consulting and transaction advisory firms, insolvency professionals, valuers, family offices, wealth advisory firms, global professional services networks, and offshore or shared service centres. Both Indian firms and foreign networks handling personal data of individuals in India fall within its scope. Most professional services firms qualify as Data Fiduciaries under the DPDP Act because they decide what personal data is collected, how it is used, how long it is retained, and with whom it is shared, including regulators or affiliates. Technology vendors such as cloud accounting platforms or document management providers typically act as Data Processors, but the primary legal responsibility remains with the firm. Larger firms that process high volumes of sensitive financial data may also be classified as Significant Data Fiduciaries, attracting enhanced compliance obligations. Nature of Data Processed by Tax and Accounting Firms Tax and accounting firms handle a wide range of sensitive personal data. This includes PAN and Aadhaar details (where provided), passport information, bank statements, income records, assets and liabilities, transaction histories, valuation reports, estate and succession planning documents, and employee or payroll data for corporate clients. Such information provides a detailed picture of an individual’s financial position and personal circumstances, making it highly sensitive from a data protection perspective. Firms often differentiate between “client data” (belonging to companies) and “personal data” (belonging to individuals). However, under the DPDP Act, this distinction is limited. If corporate records contain identifiable individuals such as directors, partners, promoters or employees the information qualifies as personal data. As a result, most datasets handled by professional services firms fall within the scope of the DPDP framework. Consent, Contractual Necessity and Professional Engagements Consent Is Often the Wrong Basis Under the DPDP Act, consent must be free, informed, specific, unambiguous and capable of withdrawal. In professional engagements, relying on consent can be legally weak because services such as audits or tax filings cannot be delivered without processing personal data. If consent is withdrawn, the engagement itself may become impossible to perform. For this reason, data processing by tax and accounting firms is usually better justified on the basis of contractual necessity (through engagement letters) or legal and regulatory obligations, such as statutory filings and audits. Engagement Letters as Compliance Instruments Engagement letters must now serve as key compliance documents, not just agreements on scope and fees. They should clearly describe the categories of personal data being processed, the purpose of processing, how data may be shared with affiliates, regulators or vendors, and how long it will be retained. Simple confidentiality clauses are no longer enough to meet the notice and transparency requirements under the DPDP Act. Purpose Limitation and Secondary Use Risks Advisory vs Analytics Professional firms increasingly use client data for benchmarking, trend analysis, AI-assisted advisory tools and internal knowledge management. While these practices may improve efficiency and insights, they can go beyond the original purpose for which the data was collected. Under the DPDP Act, any secondary use of personal data must have a valid legal basis. Firms should not assume that “internal use” is automatically permitted if it was not clearly disclosed at the time of engagement. Marketing and Cross-Selling Using client data to cross-sell additional services, identify new transaction opportunities, or approach related group companies or family members can raise compliance risks. If such use was not clearly disclosed and justified, it may violate the principles of purpose limitation and fairness under the DPDP framework. Transparency and proper documentation are essential before using client data for marketing or business development activities. Cloud Accounting, Remote Audits and Technology Risk Cloud Platforms as Structural Risk Modern tax and accounting firms depend on cloud accounting software, virtual data rooms, document management systems and digital collaboration tools. These platforms often store data across jurisdictions and may involve multiple sub-processors. Under the DPDP Act, firms remain responsible for ensuring that such vendors comply with data protection requirements. This includes putting in place strong contractual safeguards, monitoring processor compliance, and maintaining robust security and access controls. Remote Audits and Access Creep Remote audits and shared digital workspaces can unintentionally expand access to client data. Teams may gain broader visibility than necessary, information may be shared informally, and data may be retained longer than required. These practices increase the risk of data breaches and make it harder for firms to defend their processes if questioned under the DPDP framework. Strict access management and disciplined data retention practices are therefore essential. Cross-Border Data Transfers and Global Networks Global Delivery Models Many large professional services firms operate through offshore shared service centres, global centres of excellence and cross-border review or sign-off processes. In such models, personal data may routinely move outside India for processing or analysis. Under the DPDP Act, cross-border transfers are allowed only to jurisdictions permitted by the Government of India. Firms must therefore carefully review how and where client data is transferred as part of their global operations. Network vs Firm Liability Global professional networks often maintain that local member firms are legally independent. However, where data systems are integrated, technology platforms are shared, and methodologies are centrally managed, this separation may not eliminate liability. In practice, Indian firms may still bear primary responsibility as Data Fiduciaries for unlawful or non-compliant data transfers under the DPDP framework. Regulatory Disclosures, Audits and Compelled Sharing Statutory Disclosures Professional services firms regularly share client information with tax authorities, regulators, courts and tribunals as part of legal or regulatory requirements. While such disclosures may be mandatory, firms must still ensure that only the necessary data is shared. They should maintain proper records and audit trails of disclosures and ensure that data is transmitted securely to reduce the risk of misuse or breach. Conflict Between Client Confidentiality and DPDP Rights Under the DPDP Act, individuals have the right to access, correct or request deletion of their personal data. At the same time, firms may be required to retain certain records under tax laws, professional standards or litigation hold obligations. Balancing these competing requirements can be complex. Clear internal policies and governance mechanisms are essential to manage such situations lawfully and consistently. Data Breaches and Professional Liability Mandatory Breach Notification Under the DPDP Act and Rules, any personal data breach must be reported to the Data Protection Board of India and to the affected individuals. This obligation applies even if the data relates to professional engagements and even where no immediate financial loss is visible. Firms cannot assume that confidentiality or absence of harm removes the duty to notify. Amplified Consequences for Professionals For tax, audit and consulting firms, a data breach can have serious consequences. These include regulatory penalties, possible disciplinary action by professional bodies, loss of client confidence, litigation exposure and reputational damage. In advisory professions, reputation is often the most valuable asset, and a breach can undermine years of trust-building. Penalties, Enforcement and Overlapping Obligations Monetary Penalties The DPDP Act allows for monetary penalties of up to INR 250 crore per contravention, depending on factors such as the nature and sensitivity of the data involved, the scale of processing, and the mitigation steps taken by the firm. Given the highly sensitive nature of financial and tax information, breaches in professional services firms are likely to be viewed as high-risk under the enforcement framework. Multiple Regulators and Standards Professional services firms operate under multiple regulatory frameworks, including DPDP enforcement, professional institute standards, and sector-specific regulations where applicable. Managing compliance across these overlapping regimes can be complex. Weak or inconsistent governance increases regulatory exposure and can significantly raise remediation and compliance costs. Compliance Roadmap for Professional Services Firms Data Mapping and Engagement Review: Identify all personal data processed across services and engagements. Engagement Letter Modernisation: Align engagement terms with DPDP notice and purpose requirements. Cloud and Vendor Governance: Audit platforms, sub-processors and access controls. Cross-Border Transfer Strategy: Map global flows; assess notifications; update network arrangements. Training and Culture: Embed data protection into professional ethics and firm culture. Conclusion: Reinforcing Trust in a Digital Profession The DPDP Act and Rules do not replace professional confidentiality but strengthen it by turning ethical duties into clear legal obligations. Data protection is no longer just an internal IT function; it is now a core part of professional responsibility for tax, accounting and consulting firms. Firms that actively align their practices with DPDP requirements through updated engagement terms, strong technology controls and clear internal policies shall be better placed to protect client trust, manage regulatory risk and maintain credibility in an increasingly digital and data-driven professional environment.

DPDP Act Compliance for Logistics and Supply Chain Companies in India: GPS Tracking, Telematics and Workforce Data Risks

By Aniket Ghosh Introduction: Data Governance in Motion India’s logistics sector runs on precision, speed and visibility. From fleet optimisation systems to warehouse access controls and last-mile delivery apps, operational efficiency increasingly depends on granular, real-time data. What is often viewed as infrastructure data, however, frequently contains personal information about drivers, workers, customers and business partners. The Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 and the accompanying Rules bring this data ecosystem squarely within a structured compliance regime. For logistics and supply-chain businesses, the challenge is not whether data can be used, but how it is governed ensuring that tracking, monitoring and analytics remain proportionate, transparent and legally defensible in a high-volume, multi-party environment. Applicability of the DPDP Act to Logistics and Supply Chains Who in the Logistics Sector Is Covered? The DPDP Act applies to any organisation that processes digital personal data in the course of its operations. In the logistics ecosystem, this includes transport companies, fleet owners, 3PL and 4PL providers, warehouse and fulfilment centres, courier services, e-commerce logistics arms and even port or airport operators. Supply-chain technology providers offering tracking, telematics, TMS or WMS platforms are also within scope. Both Indian entities and foreign companies handling the personal data of individuals in India are covered by the law. Role Allocation: Fiduciaries and Processors In most cases, the logistics operator will be the data fiduciary because it decides what personal data is collected, why it is used and with whom it is shared. Technology vendors such as GPS or telematics providers typically function as data processors, but legal responsibility ultimately rests with the operator. Large companies that monitor continuous location and performance data at scale may face heightened compliance obligations and could be classified as Significant Data Fiduciaries under the DPDP framework. Nature of Personal Data in Logistics Operations Driver and Delivery Personnel Data Logistics businesses process: Identity and KYC documents Driving licence and vehicle details Real-time GPS location data Speed, braking, idling and route behaviour Attendance, productivity and performance metrics Location data, when continuously tracked, is among the most intrusive categories of personal data due to its ability to reveal habits, routines and private life. Warehouse and Contract Labour Data Warehouses process: Biometric attendance records Shift, productivity and error rates CCTV footage Contractor and migrant worker records Such data often involves power imbalance, making consent legally fragile. Customer and Recipient Data Supply chains also process: Names, addresses and phone numbers Delivery preferences and timing Proof-of-delivery images and signatures Even where customers are not the primary client (e.g., B2B logistics), their data remains protected under the DPDP Act. Consent vs Necessity: A Structural Tension Why Consent Often Fails in Logistics The DPDP Act requires consent to be free, informed, specific and capable of withdrawal. In the logistics sector, this standard is difficult to meet in practice. Drivers cannot meaningfully refuse GPS tracking, warehouse staff cannot opt out of attendance systems, and customers must share address details to receive deliveries. In such situations, consent is often not truly voluntary, making it a weak legal foundation for core operational processing. Necessity as the Primary Legal Basis Most data processing in logistics is better justified on grounds of contractual or operational necessity such as fulfilling delivery obligations, ensuring safety or maintaining route efficiency. However, necessity has limits. Data collection must remain proportionate, tied to a clear purpose and retained only as long as required. Using operational data for broad analytics, profiling or disciplinary monitoring without safeguards can exceed what the DPDP framework permits. GPS Tracking, Telematics and Surveillance Risk Continuous Location Tracking Modern fleet systems can record a vehicle’s location every few seconds, map routes, flag deviations and, in some cases, monitor movement beyond working hours. Under the DPDP Act, such continuous tracking must be clearly justified and limited to legitimate operational needs. Monitoring drivers during off-duty hours is particularly sensitive and may be difficult to defend. Retention periods must also be defined. “Always-on” tracking without transparency or necessity can easily be viewed as excessive surveillance. Behavioural Analytics and Scoring Telematics data is increasingly used to analyse driving patterns, rank performance and trigger warnings, penalties or even termination. Because these tools can directly impact livelihoods, they attract greater regulatory scrutiny. Companies must ensure that scoring systems are transparent, logically explainable and supported by grievance mechanisms. Opaque or automated decision-making without safeguards creates significant compliance risk under the DPDP framework. Warehousing, CCTV and Biometrics CCTV and Monitoring Systems Warehouses commonly rely on CCTV systems to prevent theft and monitor workplace safety. While these are legitimate objectives, the use of surveillance must be transparent and limited to clearly defined purposes. Employees should be informed about monitoring practices, and footage should be retained only for specified periods. Repurposing CCTV recordings for unrelated disciplinary reviews or productivity analysis, without prior disclosure, may breach DPDP principles of purpose limitation and fairness. Biometric Attendance Systems Fingerprint and facial recognition systems are increasingly used for attendance and access control. However, biometric data is permanent and highly sensitive—once compromised, it cannot be changed like a password. Because of this heightened risk, its use must be strictly necessary and proportionate. Organisations should assess whether less intrusive alternatives are available before deploying biometric systems. Multi-Party Data Sharing Across the Supply Chain Shippers, Platforms and Intermediaries Logistics operations depend on constant data exchange between shippers, e-commerce platforms, transporters, subcontractors and last-mile partners. However, personal data cannot simply travel “with the shipment.” Each transfer must be tied to a defined purpose, with clear allocation of roles whether a party acts as a data fiduciary or processor and supported by appropriate contractual safeguards. Unstructured or informal sharing creates significant compliance risk under the DPDP Act. Proof of Delivery and Customer Data Leakage Proof-of-delivery records often include photographs, signatures and contact details. Sharing or retaining this information beyond what is operationally required can expose customers to privacy and security risks especially where images reveal homes, family members or surrounding premises. Minimisation and controlled access are essential to prevent unnecessary data leakage. Cross-Border Supply Chains and Data Transfers Global Logistics Networks International logistics involves: Overseas tracking platforms Global TMS and WMS providers Cross-border customer support teams Under the DPDP Act, cross-border transfers are permitted only to government-notified jurisdictions. Operational Risk Logistics companies must: Map cross-border data flows Monitor notifications Plan localisation or restricted-access architectures Ignoring transfer rules can disrupt real-time operations and contractual commitments. Data Breaches: Physical and Digital Harm Breach Scenarios Data breaches in the logistics sector can expose sensitive operational and personal information, including delivery routes, historical driver location data, and customer addresses or phone numbers. Unlike many other industries, such disclosures carry a direct physical risk. Misused data can facilitate theft, cargo hijacking, stalking or harassment, making the consequences both digital and real-world. Mandatory Notification The DPDP Act and Rules require organisations to notify the Data Protection Board of India and affected individuals in the event of a personal data breach. In logistics operations, where compromised data may endanger physical safety, regulators may treat enforcement more seriously. Timely reporting and demonstrable mitigation efforts are therefore critical. Penalties, Enforcement and Commercial Consequences The DPDP Act permits penalties of up to INR 250 crore per contravention, with enforcement calibrated to factors such as the nature of the data involved (including location or biometric data), the scale and duration of processing, and mitigation measures adopted. For logistics companies engaged in continuous tracking or workforce monitoring, exposure may be heightened. Beyond financial penalties, non-compliance can trigger loss of enterprise contracts, labour disputes, platform de-listing and reputational damage making strong data governance an emerging commercial necessity rather than a mere regulatory formality. Compliance Roadmap for Logistics and Supply Chain Businesses Comprehensive Data Flow Assessment: Map and document all streams of location, employee and customer data across systems and partners. Surveillance Rationalisation: Evaluate GPS, CCTV and analytics tools to ensure they are strictly necessary and clearly define limits, including off-duty tracking boundaries. Enhanced Transparency Measures: Issue clear, accessible privacy disclosures to drivers, warehouse staff and customers explaining how their data is used. Strengthened Third-Party Controls: Revise vendor and subcontractor agreements to restrict secondary use of data and implement periodic compliance audits. Cross-Border Data Management: Review international data transfers, segment sensitive datasets where required and monitor regulatory notifications affecting overseas processing. Conclusion: Moving Goods Without Over-Monitoring People India’s data protection framework does not seek to slow down logistics operations but it seeks to discipline how personal data is used within them. Tracking, analytics and automation remain legitimate tools, but they must be structured around fairness, proportionality and transparency. Supply-chain businesses that embed privacy safeguards into system design and vendor governance will reduce regulatory exposure while strengthening workforce confidence and client trust. In an industry built on reliability, responsible data practices are fast becoming part of operational excellence itself.  

India’s New IT Rules on Synthetic Media: A Comprehensive Legal Analysis

By Jidesh Kumar Contributed by Sindhuja Kashyap Executive Summary The Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology has introduced sweeping amendments to the IT (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, establishing one of the world’s most comprehensive regulatory frameworks for AI-generated content and synthetic media. These amendments impose strict obligations on intermediaries, particularly social media platforms, to detect, label, and prevent the misuse of synthetically generated content.[1] Key Definitions and Scope Audio, Visual or Audio-Visual Information: The amendments introduce a broad definition encompassing “any audio, image, photograph, graphic, video, moving visual recording, sound recording or any other audio, visual or audio-visual content, with or without accompanying audio, whether created, generated, modified or altered through any computer resource.” Legal Significance: This expansive definition ensures that the rules apply regardless of the medium or format, future-proofing the legislation against technological evolution. Synthetically Generated Information: The centerpiece of these amendments is the definition of “synthetically generated information” as: “Audio, visual or audio-visual information which is artificially or algorithmically created, generated, modified or altered using a computer resource, in a manner that such information appears to be real, authentic or true and depicts or portrays any individual or event in a manner that is, or is likely to be perceived as indistinguishable from a natural person or real-world event.” Critical Exclusions The rules carefully exclude legitimate uses from the definition: a) Routine Editorial Activities: Good-faith editing, formatting, enhancement Technical corrections, color adjustment, noise reduction Transcription or compression Activities that don’t materially alter substance, context, or meaning b) Professional Content Creation: Documents, presentations, PDF files Educational or training materials Research outputs with illustrative, hypothetical, draft, or template-based content Where such creation doesn’t result in false documents or electronic records c) Accessibility Improvements: Use of computer resources solely for improving accessibility, clarity, quality Translation, description, searchability, or discoverability Without generating, altering, or manipulating material parts of underlying information Legal Analysis: These exclusions demonstrate legislative intent to balance innovation and legitimate business operations against the prevention of harmful deepfakes and misinformation. Enhanced Intermediary Obligations Periodic User Notification Requirements Frequency: At least once every three months (previously implied, now explicit) Content Requirements: Intermediaries must inform users in “simple and effective manner” through rules, privacy policies, or user agreements that: Intermediaries have the right to take immediate action if a user does not comply with platform rules. This includes suspending or terminating the user’s access, removing the offending content, or doing both, depending on the nature and seriousness of the violation. Users who fail to comply may face legal consequences. They can be held liable under the Information Technology Act, 2000, as well as under other applicable laws. In serious cases where the violation amounts to a criminal offence, criminal prosecution may also follow. In certain situations, platforms are legally required to report violations to the appropriate authorities. This applies particularly where the content involves offences that must be reported under laws such as the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) and the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO). Legal Significance: This transforms user awareness from a one-time notice to an ongoing compliance obligation, ensuring users cannot claim ignorance of platform rules or legal consequences. Special Obligations for Synthetic Media Platforms Intermediaries offering computer resources that enable synthetic content creation must additionally inform users that: Criminal and Civil Liability Creating synthetic content in violation of rules may attract punishment under: Information Technology Act, 2000 Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS – India’s new criminal code) POCSO Act, 2012 Representation of the People Act, 1951 Indecent Representation of Women (Prohibition) Act, 1986 Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace Act, 2013 Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 Consequences of Violation Immediate disabling of access or removal of content Suspension or termination of user account without vitiating evidence Disclosure of violator’s identity to complainant (where complainant is victim) Mandatory reporting to authorities for specified offenses Legal Analysis: This creates a comprehensive liability matrix that extends beyond the IT Act to encompass election law, women’s protection legislation, and criminal law, demonstrating an integrated approach to synthetic media regulation. Drastically Reduced Response Times Government Order Compliance Previous Requirement: Within 36 hours New Requirement: Within 3 hours   Intermediaries must now comply with government orders to disable access or remove information within three hours of receiving: Orders from authorized officers (not below Deputy Inspector General of Police rank) Written orders explicitly authorizing such intimation Legal Implications: Represents an 83% reduction in response time Places enormous operational burden on intermediaries Raises questions about natural justice and opportunity for appeal May face constitutional challenges regarding reasonableness under Article 14 Court Order Compliance Previous Requirement: 15 days generally; 72 hours for certain content New Requirement: 7 days generally; 36 hours for specified content   Types of Content Requiring Expedited Removal (36 hours): Depicts in any form: rape, child sexual abuse, or similar acts Previously removed identical content under Rule 3(1)(d) Legal Analysis: While faster removal of harmful content is desirable, the compressed timelines may: Limit intermediaries’ ability to verify orders Reduce opportunity for legal consultation Create risks of over-compliance and legitimate content removal Potentially conflict with procedural safeguards Grievance Redressal Previous Requirement: 24 hours acknowledgment New Requirement: 2 hours acknowledgment Legal Significance: This 92% reduction in acknowledgment time places significant operational pressure on grievance officers and may require substantial investment in automated systems. Due Diligence for Synthetic Media Prohibited Content Categories Intermediaries that provide tools for creating synthetic or AI-generated content must use reasonable and appropriate technical measures, including automated systems, to prevent misuse of their platforms. These safeguards are meant to stop the creation and spread of harmful or illegal content. They must specifically prevent the generation of exploitative or obscene material. This includes child sexual abuse material, non-consensual intimate images, pornographic or sexually explicit content, material that invades someone’s bodily privacy, and any vulgar or indecent content. They must also ensure their tools are not used to create false documents or fake electronic records, or to generate content related to the preparation or procurement of explosive substances, arms, or ammunition, which could pose serious security risks. Intermediaries must also prevent the creation of synthetic content that deceptively impersonates individuals or misrepresents real-world events. This includes content that falsely portrays a person’s identity, voice, actions, or statements, or depicts events as having occurred when they did not, in a manner that is likely to mislead or deceive others. Legal Analysis: Category 4 is particularly significant as it directly targets deepfakes used for: Political manipulation Financial fraud Revenge porn Defamation Election interference Mandatory Labeling Requirements For synthetic content that is permitted and not illegal, intermediaries must ensure that it is clearly labeled. In the case of visual content, the label must be prominently displayed, easily noticeable, and clearly state that the content has been synthetically generated. For audio content, a clear disclosure must be played before the audio begins. This disclosure should clearly inform listeners that the content is synthetically generated, so they are not misled about its authenticity. Intermediaries must also maintain technical provenance measures, such as permanent metadata or a unique identifier, wherever technically feasible. This metadata should identify the tool or computer resource used to create or modify the content and must not be easily removed. Platforms must not allow the modification, suppression, or removal of such labels, metadata, or unique identifiers. Legal Implications: Creates digital chain of custody Enables tracking of synthetic content sources Facilitates forensic investigation May face challenges regarding technical feasibility Raises questions about international content flows Enhanced Obligations for Significant Social Media Intermediaries (SSMIs) Definition Reminder: SSMIs are platforms with registered users exceeding the threshold specified by the government (currently 5 million users in India). Significant Social Media Intermediaries (SSMIs) must follow a three-step process before synthetic content is published. First, users must declare whether their content is synthetically generated. Second, the platform must use appropriate technical measures, such as automated tools or other suitable systems, to verify the accuracy of that declaration, taking into account the nature, format, and source of the content. Finally, if the content is confirmed to be synthetic, the platform must clearly and prominently display a label or notice indicating that it is synthetically generated. Legal Analysis: This creates a quasi-strict liability regime where: Actual knowledge triggers mandatory action Constructive knowledge may be inferred Willful blindness is not a defense Places affirmative duty to actively monitor and enforce Clarification on Responsibility The amendments explicitly clarify SSMI responsibility extends to: Taking reasonable and proportionate technical measures Verifying correctness of user declarations Ensuring no synthetic content published without declaration/label Legal Significance: This eliminates any ambiguity about passive vs. active monitoring obligations for synthetic media specifically. Safe Harbor Provisions and Clarifications The amendments clarify that when intermediaries remove content, disable access to information (including synthetic content), or take action after becoming aware of violations using reasonable technical measures such as automated tools, they will not lose their safe harbour protection under Section 79(2) of the IT Act. This clarification is important because Section 79 protects intermediaries from liability as long as they do not initiate the transmission, select the receiver, or modify the information. The amendment makes it clear that proactive monitoring and removal of unlawful synthetic content will not be treated as modifying content in a way that takes away this protection. The language of the rule has also been strengthened. Instead of saying intermediaries should “endeavour to deploy technology-based measures,” it now requires them to “deploy appropriate technical measures.” This removes flexibility and creates a mandatory obligation, although what is considered “appropriate” may still depend on what is technically reasonable and feasible. Legislative Updates and Harmonization Replacement of Indian Penal Code References- All references to “Indian Penal Code” replaced with “Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023” Context: India replaced its colonial-era criminal code with three new laws in 2023: Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (substantive criminal law) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (criminal procedure) Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (evidence) Legal Significance: Ensures regulatory framework aligns with current criminal law, maintaining consistency across legal regime. Constitutional and Legal Challenges Potential Areas of Challenge Article 14 – Equality and Reasonableness Under Article 14, it may be argued that extremely short response timelines such as three hours for government orders and two hours for grievance acknowledgments are unreasonable and arbitrary. Smaller intermediaries may find such timelines practically impossible to meet, leading to discriminatory impact. In response, the State may contend that the urgency of harmful content, especially child sexual abuse material (CSEAM) and national security threats, justifies faster compliance requirements. Article 19(1)(a) – Freedom of Speech and Expression Under Article 19(1)(a), concerns may arise that mandatory labeling, a broad definition of prohibited synthetic content, and pre-publication verification requirements could restrict freedom of speech and expression. These measures may chill legitimate forms of speech such as satire, parody, and artistic expression, and may amount to prior restraint. The State, however, may rely on Article 19(2), arguing that such restrictions are reasonable and necessary to protect sovereignty, security of the State, public order, decency or morality, and to prevent defamation. Article 21 – Right to Privacy Under Article 21, privacy concerns may be raised regarding mandatory metadata, unique identifiers, and user declaration requirements, which could potentially enable surveillance or expose private information. Disclosure of a violator’s identity to complainants may also be challenged. At the same time, the State may argue that these measures are necessary to prevent harm, particularly in cases involving non-consensual intimate imagery and other serious violations. Additionally, due process concerns may be raised about the short three-hour compliance window, which may leave little time for legal review or appeals and could result in wrongful removals. The counter-argument would be that post-removal remedies remain available and that urgent situations justify expedited procedures. Comparison with International Standards European Union – AI Act and DSA More detailed risk categorization Longer compliance timelines Greater procedural safeguards Specific provisions for high-risk AI systems United States – Section 230 Framework Strong intermediary immunity Platform self-regulation model Recent legislative efforts (EARN IT Act, etc.) less prescriptive State-level initiatives (California AB 730, Texas HB 3) more focused United Kingdom – Online Safety Act Risk-based approach Graduated enforcement Focus on systems and processes Longer implementation timelines Analysis: Indian approach is more prescriptive and punitive than most democratic jurisdictions, with tighter timelines and stricter liability standards. Compliance Challenges and Practical Implications For Large Platforms (SSMIs) Technical Infrastructure Required: Detection Systems: AI/ML models to detect synthetic media Metadata analysis tools Provenance verification systems Hash-based matching for known violative content User Interface Changes: Declaration checkboxes/workflows Labeling display systems Clear visibility mechanisms Multi-language support (Eighth Schedule languages) Operational Capabilities: 24/7 monitoring and response teams Automated grievance acknowledgment (2-hour compliance) 3-hour government order response capability Legal review processes that fit within timelines Record-Keeping Systems: User declarations Technical verification results Removal/action logs Reporting to authorities Estimated Implementation Costs: Large platforms: $10-50 million Medium platforms: $1-10 million Small platforms: May be prohibitive For Small and Medium Intermediaries: Small and medium intermediaries may face significant operational challenges in complying with such rules. They may not have the resources to deploy advanced AI detection systems, and meeting very short response timelines could require outsourcing or setting up round-the-clock compliance teams. Regular user notifications may also require automated infrastructure. To reduce legal risk, some platforms may over-comply, block Indian users, limit synthetic media features in India, partner with compliance service providers, or pass increased costs on to users. For Users: For users, the rules could mean mandatory declarations before posting synthetic content and permanent labeling of AI-generated work. While intended to improve transparency, these requirements may discourage legitimate uses such as digital art, educational content, entertainment, satire, and parody. Users may also face account suspension for violations and, in serious cases, potential criminal liability. Enforcement Mechanisms Administrative Enforcement The primary regulator is the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY), which exercises its powers under the Information Technology Act, 2000. These powers include issuing directions to intermediaries, ordering blocking of content or platforms under Section 69A, directing decryption under Section 69, and authorising monitoring or collection of traffic data under Section 69B. Failure to comply with these directions can result in serious consequences, including loss of safe harbour protection under Section 79, blocking of the platform, and potential criminal liability under Sections 67, 67A, and 67B of the IT Act, which prescribe penalties for obscene and sexually explicit material, including child sexual abuse material. Judicial Oversight Courts play a critical supervisory role in reviewing enforcement actions. They may examine the legality of government blocking orders, determine intermediary liability, balance regulatory objectives against fundamental rights, and grant interim relief in constitutional challenges. Key precedents such as Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015), Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India (2020), and Facebook India v. Union of India (2021) illustrate the judiciary’s approach to proportionality, free speech protection, and oversight of executive powers in the digital space. Criminal Prosecution Apart from regulatory action against platforms, individuals may face criminal prosecution under various laws. Under the IT Act, Sections 67, 67A, and 67B deal with obscene, sexually explicit, and child sexual abuse material, carrying significant imprisonment terms. Liability may also arise under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, including offences such as defamation, insulting the modesty of a woman, cheating, impersonation, and forgery. Additionally, the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO) provides stringent penalties for technology-facilitated sexual abuse involving minors. Global Context and Comparative Analysis Around the world, governments are adopting different approaches to regulating synthetic media, AI systems, and online platforms. While the objectives are broadly similar including transparency, accountability, and harm prevention the regulatory design varies significantly across jurisdictions. European Union The European Union has adopted a comprehensive and risk-based framework. The AI Act (Regulation (EU) 2024/1689) classifies AI systems into risk categories—minimal, limited, high, and unacceptable—and imposes stricter obligations on higher-risk systems. It also includes transparency requirements for synthetic media and specific provisions for general-purpose AI, with phased implementation timelines of up to 36 months for certain obligations. Alongside this, the Digital Services Act (DSA) imposes differentiated obligations based on platform size, focuses on systemic risk management, and requires detailed transparency reporting. Compared to India’s more prescriptive content-based approach, the EU framework emphasizes risk assessment, governance processes, and transparency. United States The United States follows a lighter-touch regulatory model. At the federal level, proposals such as the DEEPFAKES Accountability Act have been introduced but not enacted. Regulation remains largely fragmented, with state-level laws such as California’s AB 730 (targeting political deepfakes) and Texas HB 3 (addressing non-consensual intimate imagery). A key feature of the US system is Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which provides strong intermediary immunity and imposes limited mandatory content moderation obligations. In contrast, India’s approach imposes affirmative compliance duties and stricter timelines on platforms. United Kingdom The UK’s Online Safety Act 2023 adopts a duty-of-care framework, placing responsibility on platforms to assess and mitigate risks. Enforcement is carried out by Ofcom, with graduated obligations depending on platform size and risk level. The law focuses heavily on child safety and systemic risk management, with phased implementation over 12 to 18 months. Compared to India, the UK emphasizes systems and processes rather than prescribing detailed content-specific mandates. China China’s Deep Synthesis Regulations (2023) impose mandatory watermarking, real-name registration, and security assessments for synthetic content. Labeling requirements are strict and technologically enforced. While both India and China adopt more prescriptive regulatory approaches, China’s regime extends more broadly into centralized AI governance and state oversight. Australia Australia’s Online Safety Act 2021 empowers the eSafety Commissioner to issue take-down notices for illegal content, particularly image-based abuse. The framework blends regulatory enforcement with industry codes and standards, reflecting a co-regulatory model. Compared to India’s centralized and directive structure, Australia’s approach places greater emphasis on regulatory oversight combined with industry participation. Industry Response and Adaptation The introduction of strict synthetic media regulations is likely to trigger varied responses across the technology ecosystem, including global platforms, India-based companies, and compliance technology providers. Platform Responses (Anticipated) Global Platforms (Meta, Google, X, etc.) Large multinational platforms such as Meta, Google, and X are likely to develop India-specific compliance infrastructure to meet regulatory requirements. This may include geofencing certain features for Indian users, investing heavily in automated detection tools, expanding content moderation teams within India, and strengthening rapid-response legal and compliance units. Some platforms may also initiate litigation to challenge stringent timelines or operational burdens. Publicly, these companies are likely to raise concerns regarding operational feasibility, technological limitations in detecting synthetic media accurately, potential overreach, and the broader impact on innovation and free expression. They may also seek greater regulatory clarity through industry consultations. India-Origin Platforms Indian platforms may benefit from an existing local presence, familiarity with regulatory expectations, and faster operational adaptation. Their domestic infrastructure and understanding of cultural and legal nuances could provide a relative compliance advantage. However, they may also face significant challenges, including limited technical budgets, less advanced AI detection capabilities, and heightened exposure to enforcement risks if compliance systems are inadequate. Technology Solutions Market Stricter regulation is likely to create new opportunities in the compliance technology sector. Demand may grow for synthetic media detection services, automated compliance platforms, watermarking and metadata solutions, content moderation as a service, and legal-tech tools designed to facilitate rapid response to government and court orders. Overall, the regulatory shift may not only reshape platform operations but also catalyse a broader ecosystem of AI safety and compliance-focused innovation. Key Players: Adobe (Content Credentials) Microsoft (Project Origin) Truepic Sentinel AI Indian startups entering market Sector-Specific Implications The regulatory framework on synthetic media is likely to affect industries differently, depending on their reliance on AI-generated content and the sensitivity of their outputs. Media and Entertainment The media and entertainment industry may experience some of the most visible impacts. AI-generated content in films, advertisements, and digital productions will likely require clear labeling, increasing compliance obligations for production houses and streaming platforms. Documentary filmmakers and news media may face additional verification burdens when incorporating synthetic enhancements or reconstructions. There are also concerns around creative freedom, particularly for artists experimenting with generative AI tools. Overly broad enforcement could create a chilling effect on experimental or avant-garde content. Adaptation strategies may include: Clear AI disclosures in end credits or production notes Industry-led educational campaigns for creators Voluntary self-regulatory codes Engagement with regulators to clarify artistic and creative exemptions Political and Electoral Synthetic media regulation assumes critical importance in the political sphere. Election campaigns would be prohibited from using unlabeled AI-generated content, and political deepfakes may be subject to rapid removal requirements. The framework is likely to intersect with the Representation of the People Act, 1951, with the Election Commission playing a key enforcement role during election periods. However, enforcement in this space may generate controversy. Concerns may arise regarding censorship, selective or differential enforcement, and the treatment of political satire. The timing of compliance obligations during election cycles could also significantly influence campaign strategies. Education and Research Educational institutions and research bodies using AI tools must ensure compliance where synthetic media is created or disseminated. Student-generated AI content, research demonstrations, and publicly shared academic materials may fall within the regulatory scope if distributed beyond closed academic environments. At the same time, there may be room for limited exemptions. Certain research outputs could receive protection, particularly where synthetic media is used for illustrative or conceptual purposes and does not misrepresent real individuals or create false documents. Fair use and academic freedom arguments may be invoked, though clarity from regulators would be beneficial. Healthcare Healthcare presents unique considerations. AI-generated medical imaging enhancements, synthetic datasets used for research, and telemedicine applications may all intersect with synthetic media regulations. These use cases often serve functional or scientific purposes rather than expressive ones. Routine technical corrections or diagnostic enhancements are likely to be treated differently from deceptive synthetic content. Research outputs may benefit from protective carve-outs, but sector-specific guidance will likely be necessary to balance innovation, patient privacy, and regulatory compliance. Implementation Roadmap Phase 1: Immediate (By February 20, 2026) Mandatory Actions: Update terms of service and privacy policies Begin quarterly user notifications Establish 3-hour government response capability Implement 2-hour grievance acknowledgment Likely Deferrals: Full synthetic media detection deployment Complete metadata infrastructure Perfect verification systems Phase 2: Short-term (By June 2026) Expected Developments: MeitY implementation guidelines Technical standards for labeling and metadata Clarifications on ambiguous provisions First enforcement actions Industry challenges filed Phase 3: Medium-term (By December 2026) Anticipated: Court rulings on constitutional challenges Possible amendments based on implementation experience Industry best practices established International cooperation frameworks Assessment of effectiveness Phase 4: Long-term (2027 onwards) Evolution: Technology adaptation to regulations Potential harmonization with international standards Legislative refinements Expanded scope to emerging technologies Integration with broader AI governance framework Open Questions and Areas Requiring Clarification Technical Feasibility Questions: Can current AI detection technology reliably identify all synthetic media? What accuracy rates are required to satisfy “appropriate technical measures”? How to handle content created by foreign AI systems without Indian compliance? Scalability of human review for borderline cases? Need for Guidance: Technical standards for detection Acceptable error rates Handling of adversarial attacks on detection systems International content flows Legal Ambiguities Questions: What constitutes “actual knowledge” triggering intermediary obligations? How to balance safe harbor protection with proactive monitoring? Liability for user-generated AI content on platforms not focused on synthetic media? Interaction with other laws (copyright, data protection, etc.)? Need for Clarification: Knowledge standards Good faith compliance defenses Liability thresholds Jurisdictional issues Practical Implementation Questions: How to implement 3-hour compliance for global platforms operating across time zones? What documentation satisfies “order in writing” requirement? Appeals process for erroneous removals? Recourse for users whose content is wrongly labeled synthetic? Need for Guidelines: Standard operating procedures Documentation requirements Appeals mechanisms User rights and remedies Scope and Definitions Questions: Does “appears to be real” include obviously satirical content? What level of modification triggers synthetic media classification? How to treat content that mixes real and synthetic elements? Treatment of augmented reality and virtual reality content? Need for Interpretation: Boundary cases Mixed media Emerging formats Cultural and artistic contexts Strategic Recommendations For Intermediaries Immediate Actions: Legal Review: Comprehensive analysis of current practices against new requirements Technology Audit: Assess existing capabilities for detection, labeling, metadata Process Redesign: Restructure content moderation for faster response times Training: Educate teams on new obligations and liability standards Documentation: Establish robust record-keeping for compliance demonstration Medium-term Strategy: Technology Investment: Deploy or develop AI detection systems Geographic Considerations: Evaluate India-specific infrastructure needs User Education: Proactive communication about new requirements Industry Collaboration: Join consortiums for technical standards Legal Preparedness: Prepare for potential constitutional litigation Long-term Positioning: Innovation Balance: Maintain competitive features while ensuring compliance Regulatory Engagement: Active participation in policy discussions Global Coordination: Align India compliance with other jurisdictions Reputation Management: Transparent reporting on synthetic media handling For Policymakers Implementation Support: Technical Standards: Publish detailed technical specifications for compliance Phased Enforcement: Consider graduated implementation for smaller intermediaries Safe Harbor Clarity: Explicit guidance on good faith compliance protection Sectoral Guidance: Industry-specific clarifications (media, education, healthcare) Continuous Improvement: Stakeholder Consultation: Regular engagement with industry and civil society Impact Assessment: Monitor effects on innovation, speech, and competition International Cooperation: Engage with other jurisdictions on standards Legislative Review: Periodic assessment and refinement based on experience Rights Protection: Due Process: Ensure adequate appeal and review mechanisms Transparency: Publish enforcement statistics and case studies Proportionality: Regular review of timeline requirements Impact on Rights: Constitutional safeguards and balancing For Users and Civil Society Awareness: Know Your Rights: Understanding new obligations when using AI tools Platform Literacy: Recognize labeled synthetic content Reporting Mechanisms: Utilize grievance redressal for violations Advocacy: Monitor Implementation: Track enforcement patterns and potential abuse Public Interest Litigation: Challenge unconstitutional applications Digital Rights: Advocate for balanced regulation Education: Public awareness campaigns on synthetic media misinformation and deepfake harm Protection of individual dignity and reputation Enhanced electoral integrity Child safety improvements Trust in digital information ecosystem Economic Benefits: Indian compliance technology sector growth Jobs in content moderation and AI safety Reduced fraud and scam costs Potential model for other developing nations Net Impact In the short term, the framework is likely to have a net negative impact due to high implementation costs, operational disruptions, user-experience friction, and legal uncertainty. In the long term, the impact could turn positive if it effectively curbs harmful synthetic media, avoids stifling innovation, aligns with emerging global standards, and strengthens trust in the digital ecosystem. Its ultimate success will depend on reasonable enforcement, technical feasibility, prevention of over blocking, and meaningful international cooperation. Conclusion and Future Outlook The IT (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Amendment Rules, 2026 mark India’s comprehensive regulatory response to the rise of synthetic media. The framework introduces a clear definition of synthetic content with limited exclusions, significantly shortened compliance timelines (including a 3-hour window for government orders), mandatory deployment of detection tools, universal labeling of permitted synthetic content, enhanced liability provisions, quarterly user awareness requirements, and technical provenance measures such as metadata and unique identifiers. The rules have notable strengths. They directly address the growing threat of malicious deepfakes, provide broad coverage of potential harms, reduce ambiguity through specific obligations, align with recent criminal law reforms, and retain certain exclusions for legitimate and research-based uses. At the same time, there are significant concerns. The compressed timelines may be operationally unrealistic, AI detection technology is still imperfect, and the framework may create a chilling effect on free speech and innovation. There is also a risk of overblocking, disproportionate impact on smaller platforms and startups, and limited procedural safeguards or appeal mechanisms. Constitutionally, the rules may face scrutiny under Article 14 (reasonableness), Article 19(1)(a) (free speech and prior restraint), and Article 21 (privacy concerns relating to metadata and rapid removals). Looking ahead, legal challenges are likely to emerge quickly, with courts potentially granting interim relief on the most stringent timelines. The government may issue further implementation guidance and adopt a phased or selective enforcement approach, initially targeting egregious violations. Over time, the framework may be refined based on judicial review and industry feedback. Internationally, India’s model could influence other developing jurisdictions exploring synthetic media regulation. In a best-case scenario, the rules meaningfully reduce harmful synthetic content while preserving innovation and free expression, ultimately becoming a balanced and globally respected regulatory model. In a worst-case scenario, they could lead to over-censorship, platform exits, innovation slowdown, and constitutional invalidation of key provisions. The most likely outcome lies in between: partial implementation, judicial recalibration of stricter provisions, compliance by larger platforms, operational strain on smaller entities, gradual standard-setting, and continued engagement between regulators, industry, and civil society. Final Observations India’s synthetic media rules are a bold effort to regulate rapidly evolving technology through detailed and prescriptive standards. They are driven by genuine concerns about deepfakes, misinformation, cybercrime, and threats to electoral integrity in a large and diverse democracy. Their success will depend on a few key factors: whether detection technology is truly capable of meeting legal requirements, whether enforcement remains proportionate and respectful of innovation and rights, whether India aligns its approach with global regulatory trends, whether the government remains open to refining the framework over time, and whether the rules withstand constitutional scrutiny. The coming 12–24 months will be decisive. If implemented carefully, the framework could become a model for democratic AI governance. If applied rigidly or without regard to technical and constitutional limits, it risks becoming an example of regulatory overreach. Meaningful engagement between government, industry, civil society, and users will be essential to ensure the law achieves its goals without undermining digital freedoms.   [1] Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Amendment Rules, 2026 Published: February 10, 2026 Effective Date: February 20, 2026 Notification: G.S.R. 120(E)  

Immutability vs Accountability: Data Protection Challenges for Crypto, Web3, and Blockchain Platforms under India’s DPDP Regime

By Aniket Ghosh Introduction: The Collision Between Blockchain Design and Data Protection Law Crypto and Web3 technologies were built to reduce dependence on centralised intermediaries. By design, blockchains prioritise immutability, transparency, censorship resistance and trust minimisation. These strengths, however, sit in clear tension with modern data protection frameworks that emphasise consent, purpose limitation, data minimisation, correction and erasure. India’s Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023, along with the Digital Personal Data Protection Rules, 2025, brings this conflict into sharp relief. For crypto exchanges, DeFi protocols, NFT platforms, DAOs, wallet providers, custodians and analytics firms, the data privacy regime raises fundamental DPDP compliance issues. These include identifying who is legally responsible for data processing, determining whether immutable ledgers can accommodate user rights, and understanding how cross-border decentralised infrastructure fits within India’s transfer framework. Applicability of the DPDP Act to Crypto and Web3 The DPDP Act applies to any entity that processes digital personal data. This scope clearly covers both centralised and decentralised crypto exchanges, wallet providers, custodians, DeFi protocol operators, NFT marketplaces, analytics providers, DAO foundations and Web3 infrastructure services such as indexers, RPC providers and oracles. Jurisdiction is not limited to Indian-incorporated entities. Foreign platforms that offer services to individuals in India or process personal data of Indian users are also subject to the Act. In practice, most globally accessible Web3 platforms with Indian users fall within regulatory reach. Identifying the Data Fiduciary in Decentralised Systems Determining who qualifies as a “data fiduciary” is one of the most contested issues in Web3 compliance. In traditional models, this role is straightforward. In decentralised systems, it requires a closer examination of actual control rather than stated decentralisation. Centralised exchanges, custodians and wallet applications that determine onboarding processes, conduct KYC, structure transaction flows or deploy analytics are clearly data fiduciaries. Protocol teams may also assume fiduciary status where they design smart contracts, control upgrades, operate user-facing front-ends, or retain administrative privileges. Similarly, analytics providers that decide how blockchain addresses are clustered and interpreted act as fiduciaries for those processing activities. Regulators are likely to look past claims of “pure decentralisation” and assess who determines the purpose and means of processing. Where such control exists, fiduciary obligations follow. Large platforms with significant scale, financial risk or systemic impact may also be designated as Significant Data Fiduciaries, triggering enhanced compliance duties. Personal Data on the Blockchain: Moving Beyond the Anonymity Myth Blockchain data is often described as anonymous, but this assumption is legally fragile. Under the DPDP Act, personal data includes any data relating to an identifiable individual. Blockchain addresses, transaction histories and metadata may qualify as personal data where they can reasonably be linked to a person. Identifiability can arise when addresses are connected to KYC records, IP logs or device information, when behavioural patterns allow identity inference, or when off-chain datasets enable re-identification. In most cases, address-level data is pseudonymous rather than truly anonymous, particularly when combined with modern analytics tools. A distinction is often drawn between on-chain and off-chain data. On-chain data includes transaction records, wallet addresses, smart contract interactions and NFT metadata references. Off-chain data typically covers KYC documents, IP addresses, device fingerprints, customer support records and analytics outputs. The DPDP Act applies to both. In fact, storing personal data on-chain often heightens compliance risk because immutability limits the ability to honour user rights. Consent and Notice in Web3 Environments The DPDP Act requires consent to be free, informed, specific, unambiguous and capable of withdrawal. Meeting these standards in Web3 environments is particularly challenging. Users are often confronted with technically complex systems that are difficult to understand even at a high level. Common design patterns such as “connect wallet to proceed” frequently bundle multiple permissions without meaningful explanation. In addition, a single protocol interaction may trigger several downstream data uses across analytics, compliance and infrastructure providers. Reliance on click-through disclosures, technical documentation or GitHub repositories is unlikely to satisfy statutory notice requirements. Clear, user-facing explanations tied to actual processing activities are increasingly necessary. Withdrawal of Consent and the Limits of Immutability The right to withdraw consent exposes a core design tension in blockchain systems. Transactions cannot be deleted, smart contract states cannot be reversed, and historical data remains permanently accessible. While the DPDP Act does not require platforms to undo lawfully completed processing, it does require them to stop further processing where feasible and to avoid new or secondary uses without fresh consent. Platforms are also expected to minimise future linkages between data sets. Architectures that do not account for withdrawal at the design stage are likely to attract greater regulatory scrutiny, particularly where continued processing is a matter of choice rather than technical necessity. The Erasure Paradox: Immutability vs the Right to Correction The DPDP framework recognises rights of correction and erasure, while also accommodating practical and technical limitations. In blockchain systems, true erasure is often impossible, and attempts to redact or fork data may undermine network integrity. However, technical impossibility is not a blanket defence. Regulators are likely to expect demonstrable efforts to avoid storing personal data on-chain, increased reliance on off-chain storage with revocable access, and strong data minimisation by design. Where immutability is a design preference rather than a functional necessity, compliance arguments become significantly weaker. Analytics, Surveillance and Address-Level Profiling Blockchain analytics and compliance tools increasingly engage in high-risk processing. By clustering addresses, attributing ownership and scoring behaviour, these tools can reveal detailed insights into an individual’s financial activity, associations and networks. In some cases, such analysis may also expose political, social or ideological affiliations. This form of behavioural profiling must be transparently disclosed, purpose-limited and supported by a valid legal basis. Opaque analytics used for commercial targeting, risk-based exclusion or de-platforming raise serious concerns under the DPDP regime. A recurring issue is function creep. Data collected for anti-money laundering or fraud prevention purposes is often repurposed for marketing, partner sharing or tokenomics optimisation. Secondary use without fresh consent undermines purpose limitation and significantly increases enforcement exposure. DAOs, Governance and Accountability Decentralised Autonomous Organisations are not beyond the reach of data protection law. Where a DAO operates through a foundation, a core development team or a hosted front-end, regulators can usually identify a juridical nexus for enforcement. Governance mechanisms themselves may involve personal data processing. On-chain votes, governance forums and proposal discussions can contain identifiable addresses, expressed opinions and affiliation signals. Transparency objectives must therefore be balanced against data minimisation and adequate notice to participants. Cross-Border Transfers in Decentralised Networks Blockchains are inherently global. Nodes and validators operate across jurisdictions, and data is replicated internationally by design. The DPDP Act permits cross-border transfers only to jurisdictions notified by the Indian government, creating structural uncertainty for public blockchains and global analytics stacks. While platform operators may lack control over node-level replication, regulators are likely to focus on areas where control does exist. Practical mitigation strategies include localising off-chain personal data, restricting access by region, segmenting analytics and support functions, and closely monitoring government notifications on permitted transfers. Assuming that decentralisation alone resolves transfer obligations is a high-risk approach. Data Breaches and Smart-Contract Incidents Under the DPDP framework, data breaches are not limited to traditional database leaks. KYC exposures, wallet-linking incidents, compromised analytics datasets and smart contract exploits that reveal personal data may all qualify as reportable breaches. Entities are required to notify both the Data Protection Board of India and affected individuals. The speed, transparency and effectiveness of response measures play a critical role in determining regulatory outcomes and penalties. Penalties, Enforcement and Regulatory Overlap The DPDP Act provides for monetary penalties of up to INR 250 crore per contravention. In assessing penalties, authorities consider the nature and sensitivity of the data, the scale of processing and the adequacy of mitigation measures. Financial data and behavioural profiling substantially increase exposure. Crypto and Web3 platforms also face overlapping regulatory scrutiny, including financial regulation, AML enforcement and consumer protection actions. Weak governance and inconsistent compliance strategies can amplify liability across multiple regimes simultaneously. A Practical Compliance Roadmap for Web3 Platforms Effective compliance begins with comprehensive data mapping to identify all on-chain and off-chain personal data and to redesign systems that unnecessarily store personal information on-chain. Clear documentation of fiduciary and processor roles across protocols, front-ends and vendors is equally critical. Consent and notice mechanisms should be redesigned to provide layered, intelligible disclosures aligned with actual processing activities. Analytics practices must be governed by documented purposes, strict access controls and limitations on secondary use. Finally, cross-border strategies should prioritise localisation of off-chain data and proactive monitoring of transfer restrictions. Conclusion: Designing for Law, Not Against It India’s DPDP Act does not prohibit blockchain innovation. What it targets are careless design choices that externalise privacy risks onto users. Immutability and decentralisation are engineering features, not legal exemptions. Crypto and Web3 platforms that prioritise data minimisation, off-chain governance and clear accountability will be better positioned to build user trust, attract institutional participation and withstand regulatory scrutiny in India and globally.

Data Privacy Risks for Aviation, Travel, and Hospitality Businesses under India’s DPDP Regime: Passenger Data, Surveillance and Global Compliance

By Aniket Ghosh Introduction: Travel as a Data-Intensive Experience Modern travel is inseparable from data. From the moment a passenger searches for a flight or hotel to the point of check-out or arrival, personal data is continuously collected, analysed, shared and retained across a complex ecosystem of airlines, airports, hotels, travel intermediaries, technology platforms and government authorities. Airlines, airports, online travel agencies (OTAs), hotels, resorts, cruise operators and mobility providers routinely process: Identity and KYC information Passport, visa and travel document data Passenger Name Records (PNR) Location and movement data Biometric identifiers (facial recognition, fingerprints) Payment and loyalty programme information Unlike many digital services, travel data processing is unavoidable. Passengers cannot meaningfully opt out without forfeiting the ability to travel. This structural imbalance places the travel and hospitality sector under heightened scrutiny under India’s data protection framework. With the enactment of the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 (“DPDP Act”) and the Digital Personal Data Protection Rules, 2025 (“DPDP Rules”), data privacy compliance has become a core operational, contractual and reputational issue for travel and hospitality businesses. Applicability of the DPDP Act to Aviation, Travel and Hospitality Entities Covered The DPDP Act applies to any entity processing digital personal data, including: Domestic and international airlines Airport operators and ground handling agencies Online travel agencies (OTAs) and aggregators Hotels, resorts and hospitality chains Tour operators and cruise companies Loyalty programme operators Travel technology and reservation system providers Both Indian and foreign entities offering services to individuals in India fall within the scope of the Act. Data Fiduciaries in the Travel Ecosystem Most travel and hospitality entities qualify as data fiduciaries, as they determine: What passenger or guest data is collected How it is used and shared How long it is retained Third parties namely reservation system providers, payment gateways, cloud vendors, analytics platforms, generally act as data processors, though primary liability remains with the fiduciary. Large airlines, OTAs and hotel chains may be notified as Significant Data Fiduciaries (SDFs) due to: Scale of data processing International data flows Use of biometric and surveillance technologies Passenger Data: A High-Risk Category by Design Passenger Name Records and Travel Histories PNR data typically includes: Full name and contact details Passport and visa information Itinerary and seat selection Meal preferences and special assistance requests Payment details Such data can reveal health conditions, religious beliefs, travel habits and personal relationships, making it highly sensitive. Location and Movement Data Airports, airlines and hotels process: Real-time location data Boarding and access logs CCTV footage Key-card and room-access records Continuous monitoring significantly heightens privacy risk, particularly where retention is excessive or access controls are weak. Consent and Notice in Travel and Hospitality Is Consent Meaningful in Travel Contexts? Under the DPDP Act, consent must be free, informed, specific, unambiguous, and capable of withdrawal. In travel, however, refusal to provide data often means denial of service. Regulators are therefore likely to scrutinise: Over-broad consent clauses in tickets and booking terms Bundled consent for analytics and marketing Lack of meaningful opt-outs DPDP Rules: Enhanced Notice Requirements The DPDP Rules require clear disclosure of: Categories of personal data collected Purpose of processing (security, booking, marketing, analytics) Third-party and cross-border data sharing Retention periods Passenger or guest rights and grievance mechanisms Generic global privacy policies that obscure Indian-specific practices pose compliance risk. Biometric Processing at Airports and Hotels Facial Recognition and Digi-Yatra-Type Systems Airports increasingly deploy: Facial recognition for check-in and boarding Automated security and access control systems Biometric data processing significantly raises compliance stakes due to: Irreversibility of harm Surveillance concerns Potential misuse or data breaches Such processing must be: Clearly justified Transparent Supported by strong security safeguards Hotels and Access Control Systems Hotels and resorts increasingly use Biometric or app-based room access and CCTV and smart surveillance. Without clear notice and proportionate use, such systems expose operators to enforcement risk. Purpose Limitation and Commercial Use of Travel Data Service Delivery vs Monetisation Travel data is often repurposed for: Targeted advertising Cross-selling of services Loyalty programme analytics Under the DPDP Act, secondary commercial use requires explicit disclosure and valid consent. Legacy practices of silent profiling are no longer defensible. Loyalty Programmes Loyalty programmes involve long-term tracking of: Travel behaviour Spending patterns Preferences Without clear consent boundaries and retention controls, such programmes pose significant compliance risk. Government Access, Security and Regulatory Overlap Mandatory Data Sharing Airlines and hotels often share data with: Immigration authorities Security agencies Law enforcement While the DPDP Act provides exemptions for certain state functions, exemptions are not blanket permissions. Businesses must: Document legal basis for disclosure Limit sharing to necessity Maintain audit trails Intersection with Aviation and Immigration Laws Travel businesses must navigate overlapping obligations under: Aviation security regulations Immigration and passport laws International treaties Poor governance of government requests can expose businesses to legal and reputational risk. Cross-Border Data Transfers: A Structural Challenge The travel industry is inherently global. Airlines, hotel chains and OTAs routinely transfer data across borders for: Centralised reservation systems Global loyalty platforms Analytics and fraud prevention Under the DPDP Act, cross-border transfers are permitted only to government-notified jurisdictions, requiring businesses to: Map global data flows Monitor regulatory notifications Reassess data-hosting strategies Data Breaches and Systemic Fallout Mandatory Breach Notification Under the DPDP Act and Rules, travel businesses must notify the Data Protection Board of India and the affected passengers or guests. Given the scale of operations, breaches can quickly become high-profile public incidents. Reputational Impact Data breaches involving travel data can: Undermine passenger safety perceptions Trigger global media scrutiny Lead to loss of customer trust For hospitality brands, trust erosion can have long-term commercial consequences. Penalties and Enforcement Exposure Monetary Penalties The DPDP Act empowers penalties up to INR 250 crore per contravention, based on: Nature and sensitivity of data Scale and duration of processing Mitigation measures taken Airlines, OTAs and hotel chains face systemic exposure due to volume and international reach. Commercial and Regulatory Consequences Beyond penalties, businesses may face: Regulatory directives Contractual disputes with partners Loss of customer confidence Increased scrutiny by foreign regulators Compliance Roadmap for Travel and Hospitality Businesses Passenger Data Mapping: Identify all PNR, biometric, location and loyalty data flows. Consent and Notice Re-design: Unbundle consent and align notices with actual processing. Biometric Governance: Limit biometric processing to necessity and enhance security controls. Vendor and System Contracts: Update agreements with reservation systems, OTAs and vendors. Breach Preparedness: Develop tested incident response plans covering multi-jurisdictional exposure. Conclusion: Privacy as the New Dimension of Travel Trust In aviation and hospitality, trust is inseparable from safety and service quality. The DPDP Act and Rules make it clear that operational convenience and security objectives do not justify opaque or excessive data collection. Travel and hospitality businesses that embed privacy-by-design, respect proportionality and maintain transparent governance will be best positioned to earn passenger trust and regulatory confidence in India’s evolving travel ecosystem.  

Data Privacy Risks for Telecom Operators and OTT Platforms under India’s DPDP Regime: User Metadata, Surveillance and Platform Accountability.

By Aniket Ghosh Introduction: Why Telecom and OTT Platforms Sit at the Heart of India’s Privacy Debate Few sectors process personal data as continuously, invisibly and unavoidably as telecom operators and OTT platforms making them among the most susceptible to data privacy risks. Every phone call, message, stream, click, pause and recommendation generates layers of metadata, often more revealing than the underlying content itself. Telecom service providers (TSPs), internet service providers (ISPs), OTT messaging apps, video streaming platforms, social media services and content aggregators today process: Subscriber identity and KYC data Call detail records and usage logs Location and IP metadata Viewing, listening and browsing histories Behavioural and preference profiles For most users, participation in modern digital life is impossible without submitting to this data collection. With the enactment of the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 (“DPDP Act”) and the Digital Personal Data Protection Rules, 2025 (“DPDP Rules”), India has placed legally enforceable limits on how such data may be collected, used, shared and retained. For telecom and OTT businesses, the new framework creates a complex compliance matrix, intersecting: Data protection law Telecom and IT regulations National security and lawful interception regimes Consumer protection and competition law Applicability of the DPDP Act to Telecom and OTT Platforms Entities Covered The DPDP Act applies to all entities processing digital personal data, including: Telecom service providers (mobile, broadband, ISP) OTT messaging platforms Video and music streaming services Social media and content platforms Unified communications and VoIP providers Content distribution and aggregation platforms Both Indian and foreign platforms offering services to individuals in India fall within scope. Telecom and OTT Platforms as Data Fiduciaries Most telecom operators and OTT platforms qualify as data fiduciaries, as they determine: What subscriber or user data is collected How usage and metadata is processed How long such data is retained Whether data is shared with advertisers, partners or authorities Third parties such as cloud providers, analytics vendors and ad-tech platforms act as data processors, but primary liability remains with the platform. Given their scale and systemic importance, major telecom operators and OTT platforms are strong candidates for Significant Data Fiduciary (SDF) designation. Metadata as Personal Data: The Hidden Compliance Risk What Is Metadata? Metadata includes: Call detail records (CDRs) IP addresses and device identifiers Location and cell-tower data Viewing and listening histories Session durations and interaction patterns Even without content, metadata can reveal intimate aspects of a person’s life, including habits, relationships, beliefs and vulnerabilities. Under the DPDP Act, such metadata constitutes personal data where it relates to an identifiable individual. Continuous and Passive Collection Unlike many industries, telecom and OTT platforms collect data continuously, automatically and often without active user interaction. This creates heightened scrutiny around necessity, proportionality and transparency. Consent and Notice: Structural Challenges in Telecom and OTT Consent as the Default Legal Basis Under the DPDP Act, consent must be: Free Informed Specific Unambiguous Capable of withdrawal However, telecom and OTT services often operate on “service-essential” data processing, where refusal of consent effectively prevents service use. Such asymmetry creates legal risk if consent is bundled across multiple purposes, users cannot meaningfully opt out and if processing exceeds operational necessity DPDP Rules: Enhanced Notice Obligations The DPDP Rules require platforms to clearly disclose: Categories of personal and metadata collected Purpose of processing (including analytics and recommendations) Third-party sharing and ad-tech integrations Retention practices Grievance redressal mechanisms Generic, global privacy policies that obscure metadata processing are unlikely to satisfy Indian regulators. Purpose Limitation and Profiling in OTT Platforms Content Delivery vs Behavioural Profiling OTT platforms collect data to deliver content and improve quality of service. However, this data is frequently repurposed for: Recommendation engines Behavioural profiling Targeted advertising Cross-platform monetisation Under the DPDP Act, such secondary use requires explicit disclosure and valid consent. Recommendation Algorithms and Transparency While algorithmic transparency is not explicitly mandated, opaque profiling practices increase: Consent invalidation risk Consumer complaints Regulatory scrutiny Platforms must be able to demonstrate purpose limitation and proportionality. Children’s Data on OTT and Content Platforms Children as a Protected Category Any user below 18 years is a child under the DPDP Act. This is particularly relevant for video streaming platforms, gaming-adjacent OTT services and educational and infotainment content. Parental Consent and Profiling Restrictions Processing children’s data requires verifiable parental consent and restrictions on tracking and targeted advertising. Many OTT platforms currently rely on self-declared age and generic “kids mode” toggles. These measures may be insufficient under the DPDP framework. Telecom KYC, Retention and Surveillance Subscriber KYC Data Telecom operators collect extensive KYC data, often under statutory mandate. However, the DPDP Act still requires purpose-limited use, secure storage and justified retention periods. Indefinite retention “because regulations require it” may not always be defensible without clear legal backing. Lawful Interception and Government Access Telecom and OTT platforms operate under multiple laws permitting government access to data. While the DPDP Act contains exemptions for state functions, over-broad or poorly documented access requests can still expose platforms to: Legal challenges Reputational harm Cross-border compliance conflicts Platforms must maintain robust internal governance around government data requests. Third-Party Sharing and Ad-Tech Risk OTT platforms commonly integrate advertising networks and measurement and attribution tools and content partners. Under the DPDP Act: Platforms remain responsible for processor compliance Uncontrolled SDKs pose significant leakage risk Ad-tech driven profiling must be transparently disclosed Data Breaches and National-Scale Impact Mandatory Breach Notification Under the DPDP Act and Rules, telecom and OTT platforms must notify the Data Protection Board of India and the affected users. Given the scale of user bases, breaches can rapidly become national-level incidents. Systemic Risk and Public Trust Breaches involving telecom metadata or OTT usage data can: Undermine public confidence Attract parliamentary and regulatory scrutiny Trigger multi-jurisdictional investigations Penalties and Enforcement Exposure Monetary Penalties The DPDP Act empowers penalties up to INR 250 crore per contravention, assessed based on: Nature and sensitivity of data Scale and duration of processing Impact on data principals Telecom and OTT platforms face systemic exposure due to volume and continuity of processing. Regulatory and Commercial Consequences Beyond penalties, platforms may face: Licence or regulatory scrutiny Platform restrictions or directives Loss of advertiser and partner trust Global reputational spillover Compliance Roadmap for Telecom and OTT Platforms Metadata Mapping and Classification: Identify and document all metadata categories processed. Consent and Notice Re-architecture: Simplify disclosures and unbundle consent where feasible. Profiling and Ad-Tech Controls: Audit recommendation engines and advertising integrations. Children’s Data Safeguards: Implement robust age-gating and parental consent systems. Government Request Governance: Standardise lawful access procedures and documentation. Conclusion: Privacy as the Price of Digital Trust Telecom and OTT platforms are the infrastructure of modern digital life. With that role comes heightened responsibility. The DPDP Act and Rules signal that scale and indispensability do not justify unchecked data exploitation. Platforms that embed privacy-by-design, limit profiling excesses and maintain transparent governance will be best positioned to retain user trust and regulatory confidence in India’s evolving digital ecosystem.

Mutation of Revenue Records Based on a Will: Legal Position and Practical Implications in India

By Athira TS Introduction Mutation sits at a strange crossroads in Indian property law, it’s absolutely essential for fiscal matters, yet most people misunderstand what it actually means. Mutation doesn’t give you ownership of land, but it’s crucial for showing who’s in possession and for keeping government records up to date. It also comes up every time someone wants to sell, inherit, or otherwise transfer property. The trouble usually starts when someone tries to get mutation based on a Will. That’s when others, often family members, object and insist that a civil court must first decide if the Will is valid. This tug-of-war between quick administrative processes and deeper civil rights has led to confusion and wildly different approaches, with revenue officials and High Courts taking their own paths. Not long ago, the Supreme Court stepped in to clear things up. They confirmed that mutation of revenue records based on a Will can be done as long as no civil court has issued a conflicting order. In this article, I’ll walk through the legal framework that covers mutation, why Wills matter in succession, and what the Supreme Court’s decision really means for the law. What Mutation Proceedings Actually Do Let’s start with the basics. Mutation is just the process of updating land records after someone gains rights to a property, maybe through sale, inheritance, gift, or a Will. It’s not a trial, and nobody’s deciding who really owns the land. Mutation is administrative, all about helping the State track who’s paying land revenue and keeping land records current. A few things set mutation apart: It’s a quick, summary process designed for efficiency. You don’t need to follow strict rules of evidence. Revenue officers can’t resolve complicated title disputes. This limited role matters most when someone asks for mutation based on a Will. If there’s a fight over whether the Will is genuine, that’s a civil matter, revenue authorities can’t and shouldn’t try to decide it. Wills, Succession, and Mutation A Will lets a person decide who gets their property after they’re gone. Indian law recognizes testamentary succession as a valid way to pass on rights in immovable property. Still, Wills get challenged all the time, people claim fraud, undue influence, or that the person making the Will wasn’t of sound mind. Even with these concerns, land revenue laws don’t block mutation based on a Will. The statutes simply require reporting any “acquisition of rights,” regardless of how those rights came about. So, a Will fits right in. Problems crop up when revenue officials start acting like judges, demanding that a Will be probated or declared valid by a civil court before processing mutation. This mixes up fiscal administration with legal adjudication, something courts have repeatedly warned against. Supreme Court Steps In: Mutation Based on a Will Is Allowed Recently, the Supreme Court settled the debate. The Court ruled that revenue records can be mutated on the basis of a Will, even if a civil court hasn’t yet ruled on its validity, as long as the law doesn’t expressly forbid it, and the mutation is subject to any ongoing civil dispute. The justices made it clear: revenue authorities need to stick to their administrative role. If someone presents a registered Will and no legal heir seriously objects, mutation shouldn’t be denied as a matter of routine. Refusing mutation in such cases just hampers revenue administration and throws land records into chaos. Of course, mutation itself doesn’t establish ownership. The Supreme Court stressed that anyone unhappy with the Will can still go to civil court to challenge it. Key Legal Takeaways from the Judgment While the case dealt with specific statutes, the Supreme Court’s logic sets out a few big-picture rules: Mutation isn’t proof of ownership, it’s just a fiscal record, not a final word. A Will is a valid way to acquire rights under land revenue laws. Revenue authorities have no business weighing in on the validity of a Will when serious disputes exist. Only civil courts can decide on title and whether a Will is genuine. With this, the Court tried to balance the need for efficient administration with the protection of real, substantive rights. Civil Courts and Revenue Authorities This judgment really clears the air on who does what. Revenue authorities keep land records up to date, they don’t settle title disputes. That job belongs squarely to civil courts. Civil courts have the tools to dig into evidence, hear witnesses, and apply succession law. So when questions come up about whether a Will is genuine, if the testator had capacity, or if there are competing claims, the right place to go is the civil court. If someone challenges a mutation because of a Will or a rival claim, revenue officials can either hold off on the mutation until the civil court decides, or go ahead but note in the record that ownership is contested. This way, administrative work keeps moving, but nobody’s rights get steamrolled. Practical Impact on Land Administration The Supreme Court’s decision matters on the ground. It stops revenue authorities from shooting down mutation applications for flimsy, technical reasons. It also reminds everyone that mutation doesn’t mean the State has decided who really owns the property, it’s not a final stamp of approval for title. That’s good news for heirs and legatees stuck in limbo, waiting for their names to enter the records even when they already hold valid Wills. At a bigger level, the decision pushes for efficiency without shutting the door on justice. Refusing to mutate land just because there’s a Will in play only clogs up the system, leads to outdated records, and causes revenue headaches for the State. Judicial Consistency The Supreme Court’s reasoning isn’t out of the blue. High Courts have said for years: mutation entries aren’t set in stone, revenue records don’t trump civil court orders, and testamentary claims can show up in land records even before a full trial settles the matter. By doubling down on these points, the Supreme Court has ironed out the doctrine and cut down the chance for arbitrary decision-making by revenue officials. Conclusion By allowing mutation on the basis of a Will, the Supreme Court took a practical and legally solid path. The Court acknowledged that testamentary succession counts for mutation purposes, but kept civil courts at the center of real title disputes. This balance means the system works smoothly, without sacrificing justice. In the end, the judgment drives home a key rules in Indian property law: revenue records exist to serve the State’s financial interests, they’re not proof of ownership. When everyone respects this boundary, both government and private rights stay better protected.

The Enforcement of Anti-Trust Laws: Challenges and Solutions

By Aniket Ghosh Introduction Competition law, or antitrust law, is at the heart of any modern market economy: it ensures that markets work without their beneficial workings being compromised by monopoly power, cartelization, or exclusionary practices. In India, the Competition Act of 2002 marks a clear transition away from the old Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act to a more sophisticated approach consistent with international best practices. It is not just about penalizing monopoly power but about ensuring its abuse, consumer welfare, and efficiency objectives. Although the Indian regimes offer a strong legal framework for the promotion of competition, with an increasingly sophisticated Competition Commission of India (CCI), the issue of challenges in the enforcement of anti-trust laws persists. This is attributed to the complexities that exist in the markets, information asymmetry, procedural issues, conflicts of jurisdictions, and the dynamic nature of the digital economy. This article analyses both the major challenges that face anti-trust enforcement in India and any other similar country, as well as current trends and solutions available through either institutions, doctrines, or technology. The Statutory and Institutional Framework of Anti-Trust Enforcement It has three substantive pillars: the prohibition of anticompetitive agreements (s. 3), the control of abuse of a dominant position (s. 4), and the regulation of mergers (s. 5 & 6). Enforcement powers are conferred on the CCI, aided by the Director General, often referred to as the DG, for investigative work. An appeal is heard by the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal or the NCLAT and then by the Supreme Court. Contrary to the previous command-and-control systems, the Indian competition law takes an economic effects-based test. An agreement is judged either by its effect or by its likely effect on the issue of competition, as opposed to formalistic tests. Abuse of dominance is what is penalised, not dominance per se. Key Challenges in the Enforcement of Anti-Trust Laws Detecting and Proving Anti-Competitive Conduct One of the biggest challenges in carrying out anti-trust laws is related to identifying hidden forms of anti-competitive practices, especially cartel arrangements. These agreements are kept hidden since they are clandestine. It is important to note that it is difficult to establish collusion or agreement. Despite the existence of dubious market behavior, such as parallelism of prices or production restrictions, courts have held that it is inappropriate to infer that there is collusion without plus factors. This makes the prosecution of cartels time-consuming and laborious. While the leniency policy of the CCI is helpful in detecting cartels, the use of whistleblowers as the sole means of detection would not be sufficient for effective enforcement. Procedural Delays and Judicial Review Another important challenge that emerges in respect of prolonged adjudicatory durations is that investigations by the DG, subsequent to hearings before the CCI, appeals before NCLAT, and challenges before constitutional courts, often protract the enforcement of orders for a number of years. This tends to weaken the deterrent effect since the structure of the market could change or become unalterable by the time the final orders are issued. Though judicial review is critical for ensuring the process of law, it may encompass reassessments of economic evidence, thereby creating uncertainty in regulations. Corporations could resort to procedural inefficiencies for strategic purposes, viewing fines as acceptable business risk rather than severe regulations. Complexity of Economic Analysis Contemporary antitrust enforcement is increasingly reliant on high-quality economic analysis, such as the analysis of market definition, substitutable analysis, pricing analysis, or counterfactual analysis. Nevertheless, it is debatable that judicial for a necessarily have the technical capability to effectively assess difficult economic evidence. Relevant markets of eligibility can often give rise to disputes, which is a crucial step in establishing dominance or abuse. In digital markets or platforms, SSNIP or other established methods used in defining markets are often unreliable. Digital Markets and Platform Dominance Perhaps the biggest enforcement issue for the current state of antitrust is related to digital markets. These new forms of business tend to occur in multi-sided markets that are characterized by network effects, zero-price goods, data accumulation, or the ‘winner-takes-all’ principles. These markets pose big challenges for classic antitrust policy. Furthermore, many digital practices are often found in grey areas in which consumer damage is often both indirect and long-term. Although there is obvious innovation or efficiency gains driven by digital practices, the exclusionary effects on competitors often become apparent only later. Jurisdictional Overlaps and Regulatory Fragmentation Antitrust authority work is increasingly converging with sectoral regulation, data protection, consumer protection, and intellectual property rights. Additionally, instances of overlapping jurisdictions between the CCI and other sectoral bodies like TRAI, SEBI, or RBI have resulted in forum disputes. Although courts have strived to demarcate functional divides, the lack of clear coordination frameworks often leads to gaps in enforcement or overlapping cases that weaken the framework of regulations. Emerging Solutions and Institutional Responses Strengthening Investigative Capacity and Leniency Regimes One way to overcome challenges in the enforcement of cartels is by improving the efficacy of leniency and reduced penalty procedures. Cartels can be persuaded to reveal information about themselves to the relevant authority to gain leniency, yielding information that would otherwise be inaccessible to the authority. This is achieved through bettering confidentiality assurances. Furthermore, more resources devoted to data analysis, market intelligence, as well as collaboration globally can improve the proactive search for anticompetitive practices. Procedural Reforms and Time-Bound Adjudication In order to remedy delays in law enforcement, there is an increasingly important role for streamlining procedures and timescales in law. Fast-track clearance of mergers, summary dismissal of vexatious challenges, or minimal judicial intervention at interlocutory applications could ensure the effective enforcement of law without impairing the right to due process. Specialised competition benches and judicial training in economic thinking could also enhance consistency rates and lower rates of appellate reversals. Adapting Competition Law to Digital Markets Across the globe, competition commissions are rethinking their approaches to the enforcement of digital platforms. India has begun conducting market studies into e-commerce markets and telecommunication markets, symbolizing the onset of ex-ante regulations in some industries. Guidelines targeting systemically significant digital intermediaries seek to specify regulations before any damage is caused. These approaches understand that the classical ex-post enforcement methodologies could potentially be less effective in the dynamic digital markets, with preventive regulation having a complementary role in this context. Enhancing Inter-Regulatory Coordination An increasingly important aspect of effective enforcement is collaboration between competition authorities and other regulators with responsibility for sectors. Such collaboration can be achieved through formal agreements, joint workgroups, or exchange of information. Courts also emphasized the importance of consistent interpretation, indicating that they understand that antitrust law is a corrective instrument for the market, as opposed to a substitute for regulation: Broader Policy Implications An effective antitrust policy is not only an issue related to law but is also a broad imperative of economic policy. A weak antitrust policy would then result in more markets becoming centralized, less innovation, and finally, it would also negatively affect consumers in the long run by charging higher rates. The trick is finding a balance that allows for flexibility in competition law: it must remain malleable, evidence-based, and look-forward to the future. This is crucial for adapting to the changing markets. Conclusion The implementation of antitrust policy is plagued by challenges that emanate from the complexities of markets, procedural hurdles, and the influence of technological change. Although the antitrust framework in India is theoretically robust, its viability is pegged on the ability of institutions to develop maturity in dealing with antitrust issues. Emerging approaches, from more robust leniency programs to digital markets, indicate progress in the area of implementation. Ultimately, the key to the success of antitrust enforcement is found in its effectiveness in maintaining competitive structures in the marketplace while still allowing for growth. A dynamic and flexible approach that is grounded in economic realities is imperative for realising the promise of antitrust policy.

Patents vs. Trademarks: Doctrinal, Economic, And Jurisprudential Lenses Towards Understanding the Difference

By Himanshu Deora Introduction Intellectual property law essentially plays the role of incentivizing creation, ensuring transparency in the market, and maintaining fair competition in the marketplace. At the same time, however, patents and trademarks continue to be the two most misunderstood areas of IP law in India. While both IP systems perform the role of statutory monopolies granted through the state, the interest each guarantees, the threshold raised, and the economic rationale that underpins them are functionally significantly different. Whereas patents incentivize innovation by granting exclusive rights to technical inventions, trademarks operate to protect distinctive commercial identity against consumer confusion. Despite the presence of clear statutory distinctions under the Patents Act, 1970, and the Trade Marks Act, 1999, lawyers, business executives, and even the public frequently refer to both in an interchangeable manner. Such conflation can create substantive legal mistakes: inventors filing for trademark protection over technological solutions; enterprises mischaracterizing brands as patentable subject matter; and IP strategies not in sync with commercial reality. Judicial forums like the IPAB (now merged with High Courts), the Delhi High Court, and the Supreme Court have time and again explained that patents and trademarks exist in different doctrinal universes, each with their own policy logic and evidentiary burdens. The statutory framework, jurisprudential evolution, and economic rationale are discussed that set patents apart from trademarks and place the comparative analysis in the larger context of IP policy while using recent judicial interpretations to show how the courts have reinforced these distinctions while fostering a coherent innovation-friendly environment. Statutory Foundations: Differing Legislative Purposes Patents Act, 1970: Protection of Technological Innovation The Patents Act aims to promote scientific development by granting the inventor an exclusive right on inventions that meet three stringent criteria for a limited time: Novelty Inventive Step Industrial Applicability The Act does not protect ideas or discoveries per se, but protects the technical solution to a problem. Sections 3 and 4 enumerate categories which are expressly non-patentable, reinforcing the Act’s focus upon technological innovation. Trade Marks Act, 1999: Protecting Distinctiveness and Consumer Trust Trade Marks Act protects the commercial identity since marks enable goods and services to be traced to their particular source. The essentials are: Distinctiveness Ability to Distinguish Goods/Services Non-deceptiveness Unlike patents, trademarks do not protect functionality; instead, they protect brand identifiers such as words, logos, shapes, colors, sounds, and even smells. The purpose of the Act is to avoid confusion among consumers and to preserve the good will coming with a business. Doctrinal Divergence: The Nature Of Rights And Subject Matter Patents Protect Inventions Patent rights extend to: machines compositions of matter manufacturing processes technological improvements The right is an exclusionary right, meaning the patentee can prevent third parties from manufacturing, using, selling, or importing the patented invention. Such a monopoly is only for 20 years starting from the date of the application. Trademarks protect commercial identity. Trademark rights attach to signs that identify goods/services and help consumers make choices in the marketplace. Unlike patents: There is no requirement of novelty. Rights are theoretically perpetual, provided the mark remains distinctive and is renewed every 10 years. The protection afforded to trade marks comes from consumer protection, not from incentives to innovate. Judicial Clarifications: Preserving Boundaries Of Doctrine Courts have long distinguished patents and trademarks to avoid category errors. Functionality Doctrine and Trademarks The Indian courts, referring to the jurisprudence of comparative law, including U.S. and E.U. doctrines, have held functional features ineligible for trademark protection, since such would provide a perpetual monopoly over technology-a legal interest inconsistent with the time-bound exclusivity granted under the Patent Act. The Delhi High Court has vigorously refused claims of trademark protection for shapes or packaging serving utilitarian functions. Non-Obviousness and Patentability The courts have accordingly highlighted that, unless the invention represents a sufficient step forward from what already exists, an effective patent cannot be granted. Trademarks therefore depend on their distinctiveness, while patents depend on their inventive step. The different standards reflect different philosophies of regulation. Overlap between Design, Trademark and Patent Law In cases involving product shape or aesthetics, courts have clarified that: Functional aspects fall under patent law. Aesthetic aspects may be protected as designs initially. Source-identifying shapes may eventually qualify as trade marks if they acquire distinctiveness. This sequential protection serves to keep policy objectives across IP statutes harmonised. Economic Rationale: Why The Law Treats Them Differently Patents: Rewarding Technological Progress Patents are an economic trade-off; society is giving a temporary monopoly in return for the disclosure of the invention. The long-term payoff is: Diffusion of technology, Industrial growth, Scientific advancement A 20-year cap avoids market stagnation and monopolistic abuse. Trademarks: Market Clarity and Avoidance of Confusion Trademark protection maintains a truthful marketplace. The economic benefits include: Reduced search costs for consumers Incentives for businesses to maintain quality, Protection of goodwill built through marketing investments. Indefinite duration fits the continuing value attached to brand reputation. Comparative Analysis: Key Distinctions In Practical Terms Patents and trademarks are different in their purpose, scope, and length. While patents protect inventions and technical solutions characterized by novelty, inventive step, and industrial applicability, trademarks protect brand identifiers that provide source identification regarding goods and services. Patent protection cannot extend beyond a fixed 20-year term, which is basically the will of the State incentivizing innovation without creating perpetual monopolies. Trademark protection is indefinitely renewable every ten years, provided its marks are kept distinctive. While patents undergo strict technical examination, trademarks are examined against distinctive character and potential conflicts with prior marks. In practice, this would mean patent rights apply to such things as drugs, engines, and chemical processes, while trademark would apply to logos, names, slogans, shapes, and anything associated with the identification of brands. Courts consistently uphold these doctrinal divides to prevent functional monopolies from slipping into perpetual protection, thereby avoiding market distortions in competitive market structures. Broader business and innovation strategy implications – This in turn provides a view as to why doctrinal differentiation of patents from trademarks is important for businesses to structure their IP portfolios. Common mistakes that businesses make are depending only on trademarks while leaving the technological innovations unprotected, or trying to trademark things that are better off with patent protection. A Clear IP Strategy Requires Identifying what is functional vs. source-identifying Filing early to secure priority for patents. Building trademark value over time, Avoid brand identifiers which resemble functional attributes. The courts increasingly expect that businesses-particularly those dealing with technology, pharmaceuticals, consumer goods, and start-ups-show a sophistication that serves to respect statutory boundaries and legislative purpose. Conclusion There exists, on every count, a doctrinal, functional, and policy distinction between patents and trademarks. While patent rights reward innovation by a limited monopoly, trademarks protect the commercial identity through indefinite renewal mechanisms. Indian jurisprudence has kept this boundary intact for the purpose of not undermining one statute’s objectives by the other. While it is the patents that accelerate technological progress, trademarks build consumer trust; together, they form complementary pillars of India’s intellectual property regime. Such clarity of differentiation enables businesses, innovators, and practitioners to make appropriate strategic decisions, deploy their resources judiciously, and obtain effective protection to serve their creative and commercial interests.

Balancing Commerce and Creativity: Economic and Moral Rights in Copyright Law

By Shambhavi Sharma Introduction The Copyright Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) governs the protection of creative works in India and extends beyond the mere concept of copyright ownership. Every copyrighted work involves two essential actors the author and the owner. These two entities are vested with distinct sets of rights, namely moral rights and economic rights, respectively. Although these rights may sometimes vest in the same person, they are never identical in nature or scope. Economic rights are proprietary rights held by the copyright owner for a specific statutory duration, whereas moral rights are personal rights that permanently remain with the author. This article examines the concept, scope, and evolution of economic and moral rights under Indian copyright law, supported by judicial interpretations and international conventions. Intellectual Property Rights: Concept and Classification Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) are intangible rights arising out of human intellect and creativity. Though not physically perceptible, their existence is legally recognised as products of human ingenuity and knowledge. IPRs are often described as “knowledge goods” or creations of the human brain. Intellectual property rights (IPR) can be divided into two broad categories: Industrial Rights (includes patents, designs and trademarks) and Copyrights which also include moral rights. Copyright law is primarily concerned with the protection of creative works that fall within this definition of expression. Copyright and Related Rights Copyright is a right to protect one’s work, and to stop others from copying the work. There are rights under copyright for a copy of the original work and also for the use of that original work as a derivative or adaptation of that original work. The owner of the copyright has rights associated with the ownership of that work. In order for a work to be protected by copyright, the work must have three basic elements, these are originality, fixation and that it be authored by a human being. Section 14 of Copyright Act, “Copyright means an exclusive legal right granted to the creator or copyright owner to authorise others to carry out the specified acts relating to the copyright work.1 Copyright also includes certain rights, in addition to those identified in sections 1 to section 39.2 The Copyright Act also encompasses both radio and television broadcasting rights and performer rights (the latter is governed by the Copyright Act, 1957). It is established by the Court of Appeal in its judgement that an author’s moral rights stem from the author’s ability to maintain the integrity of the work. Therefore, any mutilation or distortion of a work, that in any way damages the author’s reputation constitutes an infringement of the author’s moral rights. The copyright consists of four individual rights the right of paternity to have the author identified as the creator the right to disclose/publication, is an economic right the moral right of integrity to protect the integrity of the work the right to retract the copyright. Except for the right to disclose, which has an economic purpose, the remaining three rights derive from the author’s creative personality and exclusive connection with the work. Economic Rights under the Copyright Act Economic rights are exclusive rights conferred upon the copyright owner under Section 14 of the Act. These rights are negative in nature, as they empower the owner to restrain third parties from copying or exploiting the protected work. Copyright does not protect ideas; it protects only the expression of ideas. Thus, while multiple individuals may independently create similar works, copying the expression of an existing work is prohibited. Economic rights are owner-centric, transferable, and work-specific. They may be assigned, licensed, or transferred like tangible property. The nature and extent of these rights vary depending on the type of work, such as literary, dramatic, musical, artistic works, cinematograph films, and sound recordings. The primary economic right is the right to reproduce the copyright work in any material form. It is medium and technology neutral, also including control over the creation of works that are substantially derived from the original as opposed to those that are independently created. The right to reproduce copies includes the publishing and selling of new copies of copyright works by authors in accordance with the doctrine of exhaustion or first sale upon the lawful sale of the copyrighted product. Once a copyrighted product has been lawfully sold, the owner no longer has control over that copy of the product, thereby permitting the resale of that copy, lending of that copy to another and permitting the making of further copies. The right to adapt or change works falls under the category of adaptation and includes the ability to adapt a play to film or to adapt a literary work into film, etc. Section 2 of the Act provides further information on what types of adaptations fall under this category of economic rights. Additionally, the right to perform and communicate copyright works to the public includes the ability to communicate through various forms of presentation and exhibit that can be heard or seen by an audience. The right also includes the right to divulge and spread copyright works; however, this right does not extend to private audiences. The Act also gives the owner of the work the right to license or assign ownership of the work for money. To make a valid transfer, there are requirements set out by the Act that must be met. These include identifying the work and the rights being transferred, stating the type of licence and any geographical limitations, specifying what is being paid or the amount of the royalty, and providing for the possibility of renewal or revocation of the licence. If the owner does not specify which rights are being transferred, all of the owner’s rights will be assumed as transferred under Section 19. There are also economic rights that include transmission and broadcasting, translation, making movies, recording music, and creating computer programs and software. All economic rights are subject to Section 53 exceptions. Economic rights continue for the life of the author plus 60 years, with some exceptions in Sections 22-29. Moral Rights under the Act Moral rights reflect the recognition of creativity as a vital component of human progress. Initially, the unamended Act of 1957 did not explicitly recognise moral rights. The amendment of 1994 marked a significant development by incorporating moral rights under Section 57. The purpose of moral rights is to protect both the author’s right to be recognised as the creator of his or her work and to protect the author’s personal relationship with the work. The legal basis for moral rights is derived from Article 6 of the Berne Convention, and moral rights do not expire even when economic rights are transferred. They are both independent of and perpetual. Author’s reputation as an artist is based on their artwork; and by allowing the author to be recognised as the creator of the work, an author’s reputation as an artist is established. Justice Pradeep Nandrajog stated this in Amar Nath Sehgal v. Union of India.3 Any mutilation, distortion, or improper treatment of the work, when exposed to the public, may cause reputational harm. Moral rights therefore safeguard the author’s honour, integrity, and esteem. International Instruments and Rationale for Moral Rights Several international conventions reinforce the protection of moral rights by recognising creative works as part of a nation’s cultural heritage. UNESCO and UNIDROIT conventions, along with the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, impose obligations on States to protect, preserve, and respect cultural property. From the instruments, the State has three main responsibilities: to respect people’s cultural rights by ensuring that they are not interfered with or destroyed; to protect these rights from being infringed upon by others; and to safeguard and restore cultural works so that they will be preserved for the long term. Limitations and Remedies Unless the author waives their rights voluntarily, moral rights remain in effect and cannot be limited by statute. The case law in Amar Nath Sehgal and Mannu Bhandari v. Kala Vikas Pictures Ltd.4 recognised the following remedies: a declaration that there has been an infringement; a public apology; a permanent injunction against further infringement; compensation for reputational harm; and restoration of the work at the infringer’s own expense. Conclusion The Copyright Act 1957 is divided into two areas that provide different types of protection for authors and artists. The first type provides an author or artist with economic rights, which allow the author to receive financial benefit from the sale or distribution of their creation; the second type provides moral rights to the author or artist, allowing the creator to maintain a continued association with their creation as well as protecting their name and reputation. Both types of copyright protection work together to create an equitable system that balances the creator’s financial needs with the need to protect the nation’s cultural heritage. The Copyright Act, 1957 (Act 14 of 1957) ↩︎ The Copyright Act, 1957 (Act 14 of 1957) ↩︎ 2005 (30) PTC 253 ↩︎ Mannu Bhandari v. Kala Vikas Pictures Ltd., AIR 1987 Del 13 ↩︎

Major GST Win: Clinical Trial Services for Foreign Clients Are Exports & Tax Free Retrospectively

By Aditya Bhattacharya Contributed by Vipin Upadhyay In a significant victory for the Indian pharmaceutical and research services industry, the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka has ruled that clinical trial services and allied pharmaceutical R&D services provided to recipients located outside India qualify as “export of services” under GST law. The ruling also held that the key GST place of supply notification which clarified this position operates retrospectively, thereby invalidating long-standing GST demands for earlier years. Background: GST Dispute on Clinical Trials M/s Iprocess Clinical Marketing Pvt. Ltd., an Indian company engaged in conducting clinical trials and observations studies, entered into agreements to provide services to pharmaceutical and research entities located abroad. Despite this, the GST authorities treated these services as domestic taxable supplies for the period April 2018 to March 2019, on the basis that the services were performed in India. They denied export status and demanded GST, arguing that the vital notification clarifying the place of supply was prospective only. The Legal Issue The core questions before the High Court were: Do clinical trial and other pharma R&D services rendered in India to foreign recipients qualify as “export of services” under the IGST Act? Does Notification No. 04/2019-Integrated Tax (dated 30 September 2019) operate retrospectively, especially for the period before its issuance? Statutory Framework Section 13 of the IGST Act, 2017 determines the place of supply of services. Generally: If a service recipient is located outside India, the place of supply is treated as the recipient’s location (making it an export under GST). However, under Section 13(3)(a), where services are supplied in respect of goods made physically available to the service provider, the place of supply could be where the service is performed. To remove ambiguity in the pharmaceutical sector, the Central Government issued Notification No. 04/2019-Integrated Tax under Section 13(13) of the IGST Act, clarifying that certain R&D services (including clinical trials) provided to foreign entities shall have the place of supply as the location of the recipient abroad. 37th GST Council’s Role This notification was issued following recommendations made during the 37th GST Council Meeting (20 September 2019), where concerns were raised about competitive disadvantages faced by Indian pharma companies due to GST ambiguities on export of R&D services. High Court’s Key Findings On 8 December 2025, the Karnataka High Court delivered its judgment holding: Clinical Trial Services Are Export Services The petitioner’s clinical trial and pharma R&D services provided to foreign recipients satisfy the export conditions under Section 13(2) of the IGST Act. The place of supply is the location of the foreign recipient outside India and hence such services are not subject to GST. The Notification Is Retrospective The Court examined the language, object, and context of Notification No. 04/2019 and held that it was clarificatory, elucidatory, and beneficial. Relying on established precedents (including Vatika Township Pvt. Ltd.), the Court reaffirmed that clarificatory notifications operate retrospectively to remove doubts and prevent double taxation. GST Demands Quashed By applying the notification retrospectively, the Court quashed the GST demands raised on the petitioner for services supplied during April 2018 to March 2019. Both the adjudication order and appellate order upholding the GST liability were set aside. What This Means for the Pharma & R&D Sector Immediate Benefits: Companies engaged in clinical trials and other pharma R&D services for foreign clients can treat such supplies as exports, free from GST, even for pre-2019 periods. This eliminates legacy GST demands based on retrospective application of place-of-supply rules. Broader Implications: Reinforces the application of common law principles that clarificatory and beneficial notifications have retrospective effect. Provides tax certainty for cross-border service providers in the pharmaceutical, biotech, and research sectors. Tax Strategy & Compliance Insights Professionals and taxpayers may consider: Re-opening past GST assessments where export status was denied for pharma R&D/clinical trial services. Reviewing place-of-supply positions in light of this ruling for other cross-border services. Evaluating how retrospective notifications impact input tax credits and refund positions. Conclusion The Karnataka High Court’s ruling is a game-changer for Indian service exporters in the pharmaceutical R&D space. By affirming that exports of clinical trial services are non-taxable and that the clarifying a notification applies retrospectively, the court has provided robust legal support for international competitiveness and eliminated significant tax uncertainties.  

E-Commerce and Competition Law

By Aniket Ghosh Introduction The rapid expansion of e-commerce in India has raised significant concerns regarding market dominance, fair competition, and regulatory oversight. One of the most prominent legal confrontations in this domain arose when the Competition Commission of India (CCI) initiated an investigation against Amazon and Flipkart, two of India’s largest e-commerce platforms, for alleged anti-competitive practices. This move was challenged before the Karnataka High Court, culminating in a landmark decision that clarified the scope of judicial review over preliminary investigations ordered by specialized statutory authorities. Informational History of the Case1 This controversy began when DVM (Delhi Vyapar Mahasangh), an organization that represents micro, small and medium sized enterprises filed its original complaint with CCI in January 2020. In the complaint, the DVM alleged that Flipkart and amazon engaged in anti-competitive practices contrary to Section 3 and 4 of the Competition Act of 2002. On 13 January 2020, the CCI, after considering the information placed before it, passed an order under Section 26(1)2 directing the Director General (DG) to conduct an investigation. Amazon subsequently challenged this order by filing a writ petition before the Karnataka High Court in February 2020. On 14 February 2020, the High Court granted an interim stay on the investigation. In September 2020, the CCI approached the Supreme Court challenging the interim stay. The Supreme Court remanded the matter back to the Karnataka High Court with directions for expeditious disposal. The proceedings continued before the High Court until 11 June 2021, when the stay order was quashed, allowing the investigation to proceed. Finally, in September 2021, the Karnataka High Court dismissed the writ petitions filed by Amazon and Flipkart. Complaint by Delhi Vyapar Mahasangh DVM alleges that Amazon and Flipkart are abusing their market power by entering into vertical agreements with preferred sellers (or choice sellers) using a selective process and engaging in indirect control of the selected vendor. Specifically, during launching an Android or iOS mobile device, these online retail platforms provided preferred sellers with advantages to the detriment of competing sellers. CCI’s investigation was based on four main practices Exclusive launch arrangements on mobile phones Promotion of preferred sellers Selling their products through deep discounts Listing certain sellers before others According to CCI, each of these practices raises concerns over potential foreclosure of the market and potential complications regarding the need to compete with others fairly through the use of online marketplaces. Amazon and Flipkart have presented several arguments to challenge the validity of the CCI’s order before the Karnataka High Court. These two companies argue that the CCI’s order surpasses the goal of the Competition Act, and that the CCI’s decision to initiate an investigation into the actions of Amazon and Flipkart was based on insufficiently established jurisdictional facts proving that the actions of either Amazon or Flipkart significantly prejudicially impacted competition. Also, they argued that the original informer’s complaint was motivated and initiated by the Confederation of All India Traders, who have previously filed multiple unsuccessful complaints against both Amazon and Flipkart. Additionally, the Petitioners argued that prior to this, the CCI has not followed its past practice of providing a hearing prior to forming an opinion based on evidence. The companies also argued that the CCI’s order was illegal since it was not based on sufficient evidence, nor was it based on an investigation by the Enforcement Directorate concerning the alleged illegal actions of Amazon and Flipkart. Lastly, the companies argued that the CCI’s order constituted Abuse of Process, inflicting undue hardship upon both Amazon and Flipkart. The Senior Counsel for Flipkart has stated that exclusivity of selling products is up to the independent choice of the seller and thus the platform of Flipkart should not be liable for those choices made by sellers. Submissions of the Competition Commission of India The CCI defended its order by characterizing it as an administrative direction under Section 26(1), which merely initiates a departmental investigation and does not determine rights or impose civil consequences. It was contended that judicial review of such orders is limited and can only be exercised in cases of mala fide intent or abuse of jurisdiction, neither of which had been alleged. The Commission further submitted that there is no sector-specific regulator governing e-commerce in India and that the allegations raised involved complex issues of inter-platform and intra-platform competition. It was also argued that the source or motivation of the informant was irrelevant, as the Commission’s focus remained on the substantive competition concerns disclosed in the information. Three main issues were identified by the Karnataka High Court on which they would make their decision: Is the order made under Section 26(1) of the Competition Act an administrative order? Is it necessary to give a party a chance to respond to the allegation and to hold a hearing before the investigating authority gives an order to investigate? Was there a valid basis for the court to intervene in the order of the Enforcement Directorate? Judgements of the Court For the first two questions, the Karnataka High Court held that an order made under Section 26(1) of the Competition Act is administrative in nature, quoting authorities such as CCI v. Steel Authority of India Ltd.3 (CCI vs SA India) and CCI v. Bharti Airtel Ltd.4 (CCI vs BA India) which confirmed that the threshold for making a prima facie opinion as to whether or not there has been an infringement is relatively low, and does not involve an extensive analysis of the evidence. The Court points out that Section 26(1) does not require prior notice or hearing to be given to a person before an order to investigate is made. These types of procedural rules only come into play after the Director General submits a report to the Commission, in accordance with Section 26(4). The preliminary investigation does not produce a civil consequence and is conducted in strict confidence. With respect to the third issue, the Court noted that the CCI had examined the information in detail and applied its mind before forming a prima facie opinion. Consequently, the Court held that the impugned order did not warrant interference under Article 226 of the Constitution. Conclusion In this decision, the Karnataka High Court stated that it would have been premature for the court to get involved in an investigation being conducted by an expert regulatory body at this point in time. The court noted that the review of judicial authority is limited at the initial stages of an investigation and should not try to prejudge matters that are better left to expert regulators. The judgment reinforces the independence of the CCI but also illustrates the lack of a regulatory framework governing e-commerce in India. The lack of clear guidelines will create a number of issues for parties involved in any type of litigation or regulatory proceedings, as well as adding to attorneys’ and regulators’ uncertainty over the law. A thorough, balanced approach is needed to ensure that competition is maintained in a manner that encourages innovation, consumer welfare and investment confidence in today’s growing digital market. CCI Order Case no. 40 0f 2019 https://www.cci.gov.in/sites/default/files/40-of-2019.pdf?download=1 ↩︎ Competition Act, 2000, § 19, Acts of Parliament, 2000. * Martin Burn Ltd. v. R.N Banerjee AIR 79 1958 SCR 514 ↩︎ CCI v. Steel Authority of India Ltd. & Anr., (2010) 10 SCC 744 (India) ↩︎ CCI v. Bharti Airtel Ltd. & Ors., (2019) 2 SCC 521 (India). ↩︎

Sector – Specific Anti – Trust Challenges in India

By Aniket Ghosh Introduction Competition law in India starts with a simple idea: free, fair markets work better for everyone. They push companies to be efficient, help consumers, and keep innovation alive. That’s the whole point behind the Competition Act, 2002. It replaced the old MRTP Act, which was all about controlling monopolies, and brought in a modern approach that fits with what’s happening in the rest of the world. On paper, this law doesn’t pick favourites; it’s supposed to cover all sectors equally. But in practice, things get messy. The way anti-trust issues show up can look completely different depending on the industry. Technology, market structures, how consumers behave, and the whole regulatory environment all change from one sector to another. So, enforcing competition law isn’t as simple as following a rulebook. The Competition Commission of India (CCI) has noticed this, too. What counts as anti-competitive in one sector might be business as usual in another. Take something that’s fine in manufacturing, it can turn into a serious problem in digital markets. Or, what regulators ignore in utilities might cause a fuss elsewhere. The CCI and Indian courts have to walk a tightrope, keeping things fair and competitive, but also paying attention to the quirks and rules in each sector. The Statutory Framework and Its Sector-Neutral Approach The Competition Act, 2002 casts a wide net. It bans anti-competitive agreements (that’s Section 3), stops firms from abusing their market power (Section 4), and keeps an eye on mergers and acquisitions (Sections 5 and 6). What stands out? The Act doesn’t carve out special rules for different sectors. Instead, it leans on economic ideas, things like defining the relevant market, figuring out who holds dominance, spotting any serious harm to competition (AAEC), and watching out for consumer harm. This neutral setup gives the law some flexibility, but it also makes life tricky for those who have to enforce it. The same legal tests apply whether you’re looking at digital platforms built on networks, massive infrastructure projects, fast-moving pharmaceutical markets, or tightly regulated public utilities. So, where does real difference show up? Not in the law’s wording, but in how you define the market, decide who’s dominant, and measure competitive harm. Courts keep saying that competition cases have to be grounded in the facts and sensitive to the sector in question, even though the legal framework stays the same for everyone. Challenges In India Digital Markets: Data, Network Effects, and Gatekeeper Power Digital markets are a whole different ballgame. Companies like Google, Amazon, and Meta run platforms that connect users, sellers, advertisers, and developers all at once. A lot of the time, these services are free, so the usual price-based tests don’t really work. The CCI has figured out that dominance here isn’t just about market share. It’s about who controls the data, the algorithms, the whole ecosystem. Network effects kick in, basically, the more people use a platform, the harder it is for anyone else to compete. That’s how you end up with “winner-takes-most” situations. The CCI has started cracking down on things like self-preferencing, forcing exclusive pre-installation, tying products together, and giving unfair access to platform data. All of these can be considered abuse under Section 4. But it’s not always clear-cut. Sometimes, what looks like innovation actually pushes rivals out. Integrating a platform might help consumers, but it can also lock out competition. Indian regulators and courts are paying close attention to what’s happening in places like the EU, but they’re also trying to figure out what works for India’s fast-growing digital world. Telecommunications Sector: Dominance in a Regulated Market Telecom is a whole other challenge because it’s so heavily regulated. From spectrum licenses to pricing and quality rules, everything is overseen by bodies like TRAI. This brings up the constant problem of who gets to decide, sector regulators or the CCI? Anti-competitive issues in telecom usually revolve around predatory pricing, cartels, or dominant players squeezing out smaller ones. When big companies with deep pockets come in and slash prices, it can drive out the competition. But courts have been clear: just because there’s aggressive competition doesn’t always mean something anti-competitive is going on. Pharmaceutical Sector: Innovation, Patents, and Market Power Competition law and intellectual property rights run right into each other in the pharmaceutical world. Patents give companies a legal monopoly, but sometimes firms stretch that power, stalling generic drugs or clinging to market control longer than necessary. The CCI has looked into tricks like patent evergreening, refusing to license, jacking up prices, and tight supply deals that keep out rivals. One big headache here is finding the sweet spot between rewarding innovation and making sure people can actually afford medicine. Claims about sky-high prices aren’t simple, they need real economic digging, especially when you factor in R&D bills, regulatory hurdles, and public health needs. The CCI tends to tread carefully, knowing that too much interference can scare off the very innovation it’s supposed to support. Then there’s the web of deals between drugmakers, distributors, and hospitals. These vertical agreements sometimes shut out competition or lead to price-fixing. India’s pharmaceutical supply chain is messy and spread out, which makes cracking down even tougher. The CCI often has to rely on deep market studies rather than jumping to conclusions. Energy and Utilities: Competition in Natural Monopolies Energy and utilities are tricky. Some parts, like transmission grids or distribution networks, just work better as natural monopolies, so they’re regulated instead of opened up to competition. But in other areas, like power generation or fuel supply, competition matters and old habits die hard. The usual red flags here? Blocking rivals from key infrastructure, unfair pricing, or favouring companies with inside connections. The “essential facilities” doctrine has gained momentum, compelling dominant utilities to provide competitors with fair access. Courts get that competition law has to respect the way these sectors work, but they won’t let regulatory monopolies hide anti-competitive behaviour. The real challenge: make sure there’s competition for the market, even when there can’t be much competition inside it. Enforcement Challenges and Institutional Constraints Enforcing competition law in India isn’t a walk in the park. The CCI faces limits on how much it can investigate, economic expertise is still growing, and cases can drag on for ages. Throw in digital markets and highly regulated industries, and you need a whole new level of economic and technical know-how. Coordination with sector regulators? Still a work in progress. Agreements are on paper, but overlapping powers often slow things down and leave businesses guessing. There’s a growing call for specialised benches and clearer, sector-specific rules. Tools like settlements, commitments, and leniency programs are starting to show up. These help make enforcement quicker and more flexible, especially in complicated sectors where drawn-out litigation can kill innovation or stall investment. Conclusion India’s sector-specific anti-trust issues really show how one-size-fits-all laws run into trouble with messy, real-world markets. The Competition Act gives regulators a lot to work with, but how well it works depends on context and the maturity of the institutions using it. Indian competition law is slowly turning more nuanced, paying closer attention to the quirks of digital platforms, regulated utilities, innovation-heavy industries, and big infrastructure. As India’s economy grows more complex, competition law has to keep up. The goal is to strike the right balance, boosting efficiency, stopping market abuses, and letting honest businesses compete. Staying sharp on economic analysis, tuning into each sector’s realities, and making sure regulators talk to each other will be key if India wants a competition regime that’s both strong and ready for the future.  

RERA in Practice: Regulatory Discipline, Litigation Trends, and Strategic Implications for the Indian Real Estate Sector

By Adnan Siddiqui Introduction The enactment of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (“RERA”) marked a structural shift in the regulation of India’s real estate sector. Prior to RERA, the regulatory landscape was fragmented and largely reactive, relying on general contract law, consumer protection mechanisms, and state-level regulations that proved inadequate to address systemic issues such as project delays, diversion of funds, opaque disclosures, and asymmetric bargaining power between developers and homebuyers. RERA introduced a sector-specific regulatory regime aimed at institutionalising transparency, financial discipline, and accountability in real estate development. Nearly a decade after its enactment, the law has reshaped industry practices, triggered significant litigation, and influenced investment patterns in the sector. This article examines RERA as a transformational regulatory instrument, analysing its operational mechanisms, evolving jurisprudence, and practical implications for developers, investors, and homebuyers. The Regulatory Gap Prior to RERA Before RERA, disputes between homebuyers and developers were primarily addressed through: The Indian Contract Act, 1872 The Transfer of Property Act, 1882 Consumer Protection legislation State apartment ownership laws While these laws governed contractual and property rights, they did not regulate the real estate development process itself. Consequently, several systemic issues persisted: Chronic project delays, often extending years beyond promised timelines Diversion of funds from one project to another Misleading advertisements and incomplete disclosures Lack of accountability for construction quality Inefficient dispute resolution mechanisms The absence of a dedicated regulator meant that buyers frequently had to pursue lengthy litigation through consumer forums or civil courts. RERA sought to address these structural deficiencies by introducing preventive regulation rather than purely remedial enforcement. Core Regulatory Architecture Under RERA Mandatory Project Registration RERA requires developers to register real estate projects with the respective State Real Estate Regulatory Authority before: advertising, marketing, or selling units in the project. Registration is mandatory where: the land area exceeds 500 square metres, or the project includes more than eight apartments. Projects that had not received a completion certificate at the time of RERA’s commencement were also brought within the regulatory framework. The registration requirement has effectively created a regulatory gatekeeping mechanism, preventing the launch of unapproved or under-documented projects. Disclosure and Transparency Obligations A defining feature of RERA is the digital disclosure regime requiring developers to upload detailed project information on the regulator’s online portal, including: sanctioned plans and layout approvals land title details and encumbrances project timelines and construction schedules status of statutory approvals details of contractors, architects, and engineers These disclosures must be periodically updated, allowing buyers and investors to monitor project progress. The requirement represents a shift toward information symmetry in real estate transactions, enabling market participants to make more informed decisions. Financial Discipline Through Escrow Mechanisms One of the most consequential provisions of RERA is the requirement that 70% of the amounts realised from allottees be deposited in a dedicated escrow account. These funds may be withdrawn only in proportion to the percentage of project completion, and withdrawals must be certified by: an engineer, an architect, and a chartered accountant. This mechanism was designed to address a long-standing industry practice where developers diverted funds from one project to finance unrelated developments, contributing to large-scale project delays. The escrow requirement has therefore introduced financial ring-fencing and project-specific funding discipline. Strengthening Homebuyer Rights RERA significantly expands the rights available to homebuyers (referred to as “allottees” under the Act). Key rights include: Right to Timely Possession: If a developer fails to complete the project within the declared timeline, the allottee may choose to withdraw from the project and claim a refund with interest, or remain in the project and receive interest for every month of delay. This provision fundamentally alters the risk allocation in real estate transactions, shifting the burden of delays onto the developer. Standardisation of Sale Agreements: RERA mandates the use of a model agreement for sale, limiting the scope for one-sided contractual clauses that previously favoured developers. A key reform is parity in interest liability, both developers and buyers must pay the same rate of interest in case of default. This requirement has strengthened contractual fairness and enforceability. Structural Defect Liability: Developers are responsible for rectifying structural defects or workmanship deficiencies reported within five years of possession. The defect liability provision has introduced a post-possession accountability framework, incentivising better construction practices. Institutional Framework: Regulators and Tribunals Real Estate Regulatory Authority Each state and union territory must establish a Real Estate Regulatory Authority responsible for: project registration compliance monitoring enforcement actions grievance redressal The Authority also plays a quasi-judicial role in adjudicating complaints relating to violations of the Act. Real Estate Appellate Tribunal Appeals against decisions of the Authority or the adjudicating officer lie before the Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (REAT). A notable feature of the appellate framework is that developers must deposit a prescribed percentage of the penalty or compensation amount before filing an appeal, which discourages frivolous litigation. Evolving Judicial Interpretation Since its enactment, RERA has generated extensive litigation across High Courts and the Supreme Court, shaping the interpretation of the statute. Courts have consistently emphasised the consumer-centric nature of the legislation, often interpreting its provisions in favour of homebuyers. Judicial decisions have also clarified important issues such as: the concurrent jurisdiction of RERA authorities and consumer courts the scope of refund and compensation rights the liability of developers in delayed projects This evolving jurisprudence continues to define the contours of the RERA regime. Market Impact: Structural Changes in the Real Estate Sector Increased Institutional Investment The regulatory clarity introduced by RERA has significantly improved investor confidence in the Indian real estate market. Institutional investors, including private equity funds and real estate investment trusts (REITs), now view the sector as more transparent and predictable. Consolidation of the Developer Landscape Compliance requirements under RERA have increased the cost of regulatory adherence and project management. As a result: smaller and unorganised developers have exited the market, while larger, better-capitalised developers have expanded their market share. This consolidation has contributed to the formalisation of the real estate sector. Improved Consumer Trust RERA’s enforcement mechanisms and digital transparency have enhanced public confidence in real estate transactions. Buyers today have access to: verified project information, statutory remedies, and specialised adjudicatory forums. This has strengthened the credibility of the sector, particularly in metropolitan markets. Continuing Challenges in Implementation State-Level Variations: Because RERA is implemented by state authorities, significant variations exist in rules, procedures, and enforcement practices across jurisdictions. This has created compliance complexity for developers operating across multiple states. Enforcement Capacity: Several state regulators face resource constraints and case backlogs, which can delay adjudication of complaints. Project Structuring and Regulatory Arbitrage: Certain developers have attempted to structure projects in ways that avoid RERA registration thresholds, such as segmenting developments into smaller phases. Regulators continue to address such practices through stricter interpretation of the Act. The Future of Real Estate Regulation in India Nearly a decade after its introduction, RERA has fundamentally altered the governance of real estate development in India. Going forward, the effectiveness of the framework will depend on: greater harmonisation of state-level rules, stronger enforcement capacity, and increased regulatory coordination with insolvency and consumer protection regimes. If implemented consistently, RERA has the potential to transform India’s real estate market into a more transparent, institutionally driven, and investor-friendly sector. Conclusion The Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 represents one of the most significant regulatory reforms in India’s property sector. By introducing mandatory disclosures, financial safeguards, and specialised dispute resolution mechanisms, the legislation has sought to rebalance the relationship between developers and homebuyers while enhancing market discipline. Although implementation challenges remain, RERA has already played a critical role in formalising the sector, improving transparency, and restoring trust in real estate transactions. Its continued evolution through regulatory practice and judicial interpretation will shape the future trajectory of India’s real estate market. Authored  by - Rajesh Sivaswamy, Senior Partner https://ksandk.com/people/rajesh-sivaswamy/ Contributed by - Sindhuja Kashyap, Partner https://ksandk.com/people/sindhuja-kashyap/ Firm Website: https://ksandk.com/

From Brick to Byte: Decoding the Legal Architecture of REITs in India

By Nayana Shivaraj The evolution of India’s real estate sector has long been constrained by high entry barriers, opacity, and illiquidity. The introduction of Real Estate Investment Trusts (REITs), however, marks a decisive shift, transforming real estate from a traditionally asset-heavy investment into a market-linked, regulated financial instrument. At the heart of this transition lies a robust legal framework crafted by the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI), which has sought to strike a careful balance between investor protection and market innovation.   REITs as a Legal Innovation REITs, by design, are not merely financial products, they are legal constructs that reimagine ownership. Structured as trusts, they enable fractional investment in income-generating real estate, while insulating investors from the operational complexities of property management. The governing regime, encapsulated under the SEBI (Real Estate Investment Trusts) Regulations, 2014, reflects a deliberate attempt to align India’s real estate market with global investment standards, while adapting to domestic regulatory realities. The Three-Tier Structure: Ensuring Accountability A defining feature of the Indian REIT framework is its tripartite structure: Sponsors, who set up the REIT and contribute assets; Trustees, who hold assets in fiduciary capacity; and Managers, who undertake operational and investment decisions. This separation is not merely procedural, it is foundational. By distributing responsibilities, the framework embeds checks and balances, mitigates conflicts of interest, and reinforces fiduciary accountability.   Regulatory Guardrails: Stability Over Speculation SEBI’s regulatory approach to REITs has been notably conservative, prioritizing stability over rapid expansion. Key requirements—such as mandating that at least 80% of assets be invested in completed, income-generating properties and enforcing mandatory distribution norms, underscore a clear policy intent: REITs are to function as yield-oriented instruments, not speculative vehicles. Similarly, the requirement of a broad investor base ensures diversification and reduces concentration risks, aligning with the broader objectives of market integrity. The 2024 Amendments: A Turning Point Recent amendments to the REIT Regulations signal a maturing regulatory outlook. The introduction of Small and Medium REITs (SM REITs) is particularly noteworthy. By lowering entry thresholds and formally recognising fractional ownership structures, SEBI has effectively acknowledged the growing appetite for alternative real estate investments. This move not only legitimises emerging market practices but also expands the investment universe beyond large institutional assets. Equally significant is the reclassification of REITs as equity instruments for mutual funds. This seemingly technical shift has far-reaching implications, enhancing liquidity, facilitating institutional participation, and integrating REITs more deeply into mainstream capital markets.   Interplay of Regulators: A Multi-Layered Framework While SEBI remains the principal regulator, the REIT ecosystem operates within a broader regulatory matrix. The Reserve Bank of India (RBI), through its evolving stance on lending to REITs, has opened additional avenues for capital access. Concurrently, the tax regime, particularly the pass-through status accorded to certain income streams, plays a pivotal role in shaping investor returns and market attractiveness. This multi-regulatory interplay reflects the hybrid nature of REITs, situated at the intersection of real estate and financial markets.   Bridging Markets: The Larger Significance From a policy perspective, REITs serve a dual function. They provide investors with access to stable, income-generating assets, while enabling developers to unlock capital tied up in completed projects. In doing so, REITs contribute to capital recycling, a critical requirement in a capital-intensive sector like real estate. More importantly, they introduce a degree of transparency and governance that has historically eluded the sector.   Persistent Gaps and Emerging Questions Notwithstanding their promise, REITs in India remain concentrated in commercial office assets, limiting sectoral diversification. Retail participation, though improving, is still tempered by limited awareness and understanding. The regulatory recognition of fractional ownership platforms through SM REITs also raises important questions around compliance, valuation standards, and investor protection, areas that will require continued regulatory vigilance. Conclusion: A Framework in Transition India’s REIT regime is no longer in its infancy, it is in a phase of calibrated expansion. The legal framework has demonstrated both resilience and adaptability, responding to market developments without compromising on core safeguards. The trajectory ahead will depend on how effectively the law continues to evolve in tandem with innovation. If recent reforms are any indication, REITs are poised to play a defining role in bridging India’s real estate and capital markets, one regulatory refinement at a time. Authored by - Nayana Shivaraj, Associate https://ksandk.com/people/nayana-shivaraj/ Firm Website: https://ksandk.com/

The Fine Print of Property Ownership: Decoding Leasehold and Freehold in India

By Nidhi Sharma The distinction between leasehold and freehold property is a fundamental concept in Indian real estate law, with significant legal and practical implications for buyers, developers, and investors. Understanding these systems is essential, particularly in a country where land ownership is closely regulated and often complex. Understanding Freehold Property Freehold property refers to absolute ownership of both the land and the structure built on it. The owner has full rights to use, transfer, mortgage, or sell the property without requiring permission from any superior authority (subject to applicable laws and local regulations). This form of ownership is generally considered more secure and desirable, as it grants long-term control and fewer restrictions. From a legal perspective, freehold ownership minimizes dependency on third parties and reduces the risk of disputes relating to title or renewal. It also enhances the property’s market value and ease of transfer, making it a preferred choice for residential buyers and financial institutions.   Understanding Leasehold Property Leasehold property, on the other hand, involves ownership rights that are limited to a specific period, granted by the lessor (often a government authority or development body). The lessee has the right to occupy and use the property for the duration of the lease, which may range from 30 to 99 years or more. Legally, leasehold arrangements come with conditions. These may include restrictions on transfer, subletting, structural modifications, and usage. In many cases, prior approval from the lessor is required for sale or mortgage. Additionally, lease renewal is not always automatic and may involve additional costs or revised terms.   Key Legal Implications Transfer and Marketability Freehold properties are easier to transfer, as they do not require third-party approvals. Leasehold properties, however, often require consent from the lessor, which can delay transactions and affect marketability. Financing and Mortgages Financial institutions generally prefer freehold properties due to clear ownership rights. Leasehold properties, especially those nearing the end of the lease term, may face challenges in securing loans. Title Certainty and Due Diligence Leasehold properties demand more rigorous legal due diligence. Buyers must review lease terms, remaining tenure, renewal clauses, and compliance with conditions. Any breach of lease terms can lead to penalties or even cancellation. Conversion Rights In many Indian states, leasehold properties can be converted into freehold upon payment of conversion charges and compliance with regulations. While this offers flexibility, the process can be time-consuming and subject to administrative discretion. Regulatory and Compliance Risks Leasehold properties are more susceptible to regulatory intervention. Changes in government policy or land-use regulations can impact rights and obligations under the lease. Long-Term Security Freehold ownership provides perpetual rights, whereas leasehold ownership is time-bound. As the lease term diminishes, the value of the property may decline, affecting both resale potential and investment returns.   Practical Considerations for Buyers Buyers must carefully assess their objectives before choosing between leasehold and freehold property. While leasehold properties may sometimes be more affordable or located in prime areas developed by authorities, they come with additional legal layers. Freehold properties, though often more expensive, provide greater autonomy and long-term security.   Conclusion The legal implications of leasehold and freehold property systems in India are far-reaching, influencing ownership rights, transaction processes, financing, and long-term value. While freehold ownership offers simplicity and certainty, leasehold arrangements require careful legal scrutiny and ongoing compliance. For stakeholders in the real estate sector, a clear understanding of these distinctions is crucial to making informed and legally sound decisions. Authored by - Nidhi Sharma, Associate https://ksandk.com/people/nidhi-sharma/ Firm Website: https://ksandk.com/

From Policy Concept to Market Instrument: The Regulatory Framework for Virtual PPAs in India

By Nivedita Bhardwaj Introduction India’s move towards a clean energy future has resulted in the development of innovative market instruments that will help facilitate the growth of renewable energy while meeting obligations imposed on obligated entities. To this end, the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (CERC) has proposed regulatory amendments to the Indian power market that will formally incorporate VPPAs (Virtual Power Purchase Agreement) into the market. The amendments are known as the “Draft Amendments” and will provide clarity regarding the legal status of VPPAs, where they will be traded in the OTC (Over-the-Counter) power market and the regulatory frameworks which will govern the OTC power market and REC (Renewable Energy Certificate) trading. Regulatory Developments The draft guidelines for VPPAs were released by CERC on May 22, 20251, and were made available for stakeholder input until June 20, 2025, with a subsequent extension of the deadline to July 11, 2025. These draft guidelines are intended to provide stakeholders with the opportunity to comment on the proposed regulatory framework for VPPAs, which are a new product in the Indian electricity market. On June 17, 2025, CERC published a draft of the first amendment to the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (Power Market) (First Amendment) Regulations, 2025, requesting comments from stakeholders with an initial deadline of July 14 and a second deadline of August 18, 2025, and requesting comments concerning both regulatory drafts that have recently been established after the publication of the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (Power Market) Regulations, 2021 and the Draft VPPA Guidelines. The public hearing on the Draft VPPA Guidelines and the Draft Power Market Amendment was held on August 18, 2025. On September 22, 2025, CERC published the Draft of the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (Terms and Conditions for Renewable Energy Certificates for Renewable Energy Generation) (First Amendment) Regulations, 2025 for which the amendments are intended to modify the existing regulations regarding REC’s under the Renewable Energy Certificate Roadmap for Renewable Energy Generation (RCO) compliance. The Indian government has set a renewable energy target of 500 GW of renewable energy by 2030, to improve the overall security of electricity supply and fulfil commitments to reduce climate change through renewable energy. To meet these objectives, a minimum Renewable Consumption Obligation has been implemented for different groups of end users, including distribution licensees, open access consumers, and captive customers. A designated consumer may satisfy their obligation to increase their usage of renewable energy by consuming renewable energy directly or by purchasing Renewable Energy Certificates. After reviewing international best practices, the CERC has determined that virtual power purchase agreements (“VPPAs”) provide an option for designated consumers to meet their Renewable Consumption Obligation (“RCO”) targets. Due to the innovative structure of VPPAs, the CERC sought a definition of their regulatory status from the Securities and Exchange Board of India (“SEBI”). On January 31, 2025, SEBI characterized VPPAs as bilateral, non-tradable, and non-transferable over-the-counter contracts. Additionally, SEBI stated that in the event that a VPPA qualifies as a non-transferable specific delivery contract under the Securities Contracts (Regulation) Act of 1956, then the regulatory authority for these types of contracts would rest with the CERC under its jurisdiction. As a result of SEBI’s opinion, on March 3, 2025, the Ministry of Power requested the CERC to create rules to regulate VPPAs in accordance with the format of an over-the-counter contract. This initiated the drafting of the proposed VPPA Guidelines, as well as proposed amendments. Draft Amendment to the Electricity Market Regulations – Overview of Key Features The proposed amendment to the Electricity Market Regulations is intended to integrate Virtual Power Purchase Agreements (VPPAs) into the Indian electricity market.2 The proposed amendment will define VPPAs, recognize VPPAs as an instrument of the electricity market and incorporate them into the framework governing Over-The-Counter (OTC) transactions. VPPAs are defined as a non-transferable OTC contract based on specific delivery, as per the SEBI’s interpretation of OTC contracts. Furthermore, the proposed amendment broadens and redefines Critical Terms like “market;” “OTC Market;” “OTC platform;” and “member of an OTC platform” to allow for a larger number of transactions to take place via OTC platforms. It is expected that OTC platforms will facilitate the execution of new forms of OTC contracts, including VPPAs and Renewable Energy Certificates (RECs), through online communication and transparency. In addition to expanding and redefining OTC contracts, the proposed amendment to the Electricity Market Regulations will also expand the types of OTC contracts that can be executed through the OTC market to include, but not be limited to, VPPAs, RECs, capacity contracts, battery energy storage systems, and power banking agreements. In addition, the proposed amendment requires that the structure and implementation of VPPAs comply with guidelines issued by the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (CERC). Renewable Power Purchase Agreements are structured in a way that allows for a relationship between an end-user of electricity or a third-party buyer and a renewable energy producer. The third-party buyer can be defined under the Energy Conservation Act of 2001. The end-user/buyer will pay an agreed-upon VPPA price for the entire duration of the contract.3 The renewable energy producer is required to supply the electricity generated to the Power Exchanges and/or to other methods as authorized by the Electricity Act of 2003. A VPPA is essentially a financial agreement between two entities and is settled bilaterally. The difference between the VPPA price and the current market price settled periodically based on the difference between the strike price and reference market price. The VPPA price is established by mutual agreement between the two entities, through a trader, and/or is listed on an Over-the-Counter platform. VPPAs have been formally recognized in the Draft Power Market Amendment as valid “over the counter” contracts, which allow for their inclusion in the larger Electricity Marketplace. The definition of “market” has been changed to include platforms where electricity, RECs, and other types of Energy Saving Certificates that are approved by the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission can be traded In the area of scheduling, the Draft Power Market Amendment aligns OTC contracts (including VPPA) with the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (Connectivity and General Network Access to the Inter-State Transmission System) Regulations, 2022 and the Indian Electricity Grid Code, 2023 by replacing or deleting the existing references to the previous open access and connectivity regulation with appropriate provisions in line with the new regulatory framework. OTC Platforms and Regulatory Oversight OTC platform regulation will now allow for the facilitation of transactions between buyers and sellers of all OTC contracts, as well as their creation based on the mutual agreement, competitive bidding, or at the direction of the Regulatory Authority. OTC platform operators will be required to maintain minimum net worths of Rs.350 million (from Rs.10 million). OTC platform registration periods will extend to ten years from five years. Although OTC platforms provide a means for buyers and sellers of OTC contracts to conduct transactions, they remain prohibited from assuming Counterparty credit risk. CERC will also expand its oversight and inspection activities to include OTC platforms, allowing CERC to intervene in the case of non-compliance, market manipulation, etc., of OTC platforms. REC Transactions under VPPAs In addition to these regulations, the Draft REC Amendment introduces regulations related to Statutory RECs created by RE generating stations engaged in VPPA transactions. Statutory RECs generated in this manner are automatically transferred to the consumer (or designated consumer) through the VPPA and can be used to satisfy Renewable Purchase Obligations and Renewable Consumption Obligations.. Once used, these RECs are extinguished, although surplus certificates may be carried forward for future compliance. Importantly, such RECs are not permitted to be traded. Conclusion This conclusion summarizes the Draft Amendment as being a systematic approach for incorporating Virtual Power Purchase Agreements (VPPAs) into the Indian power market, supporting the extension of renewable energy and ensuring compliance with mandated obligations under the Renewable Energy Certificate (REC). Draft Amendments clarify and recognise VPPAs as a new purchasing tool by standardising how VPPAs will operate within the context of contract, market setting and settlement processes. The Draft Amendments provide a framework within which certain established guidelines will govern the use of VPPAs, but there are still limitations regarding both the transferability and tradability of environmental attribute certificates, as well as the narrow eligibility criteria for buyers. This could impact the ability of a company to utilize these VPPAs on a larger scale. However, given India’s goal of achieving climate and renewable energy commitments, the Draft Amendments will enhance private sector participation in renewable energy projects. https://cercind.gov.in/2025/draft_reg/Draft%20Guidelines%20for%20VPPAs.pdf ↩︎ https://cercind.gov.in/2025/draft_reg/DN_PMR_Amendment.pdf ↩︎ https://cercind.gov.in/2025/draft_reg/EM-PMR_amendments.pdf ↩︎ Authored  by - Nivedita Bhardwaj, Partner https://ksandk.com/people/nivedita-bhardwaj/ Firm Website: https://ksandk.com/

Force Majeure in Times of War: Navigating Contractual Risk Under Indian Law in the Context of the Iran-Israel-US Conflict

By Sukrit Kapoor Introduction The resurgence of geopolitical conflict involving Iran, Israel, and the United States has once again foregrounded the vulnerability of international commercial arrangements to external shocks. For Indian businesses engaged in cross-border trade, energy procurement, logistics, and manufacturing, the ripple effects of such a conflict ranging from disrupted shipping routes to sanctions and supply shortages, pose significant challenges to contractual performance.  In this context, the doctrine of force majeure assumes heightened relevance. However, its invocation under Indian law is neither automatic nor expansive. It is governed by a strict legal framework that prioritises contractual intent, demands demonstrable causation, and imposes rigorous procedural obligations. This article examines the legal contours of force majeure in India, with particular emphasis on liability, performance, procedural compliance, and dispute risks in a war-driven disruption scenario. The Legal Framework: Sections 32 and 56 of the Indian Contract Act Contractual Force Majeure under Section 32 Indian law does not recognise force majeure as a standalone doctrine. Instead, it is embedded within the statutory scheme of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. Where a contract expressly provides for a force majeure clause, its operation is governed by Section 32, which deals with contingent contracts. The rights and obligations of the parties are thus determined strictly by the language, scope, and conditions set out in the clause. Courts in India have consistently upheld the primacy of contractual terms, emphasising that force majeure must be interpreted within the “four corners” of the agreement. Consequently, the inclusion or omission of terms such as “war,” “sanctions,” or “government action” becomes determinative. Doctrine of Frustration under Section 56 In the absence of a force majeure clause, parties may seek recourse under Section 56, which embodies the doctrine of frustration. However, Indian courts apply this provision narrowly. A contract is rendered void only when performance becomes impossible or unlawful, and not merely difficult or commercially burdensome. The threshold for frustration is therefore significantly higher than that for invoking a contractual force majeure clause. War as a Force Majeure Event: Scope and Limitations  Recognition of War and Allied Events War, armed conflict, hostilities, embargoes, and sanctions are traditionally recognised as force majeure events and are often expressly included in commercial contracts. In the context of the Iran-Israel-US conflict, such events may prima facie fall within the scope of a well-drafted clause. The Requirement of Direct Causation Notwithstanding such recognition, Indian courts require a clear and proximate causal link between the force majeure event and the inability to perform contractual obligations. The mere existence of war does not suffice. The party invoking force majeure must demonstrate that the event has directly prevented performance. Thus, disruptions such as closure of critical shipping routes, government-imposed trade restrictions, or complete unavailability of essential raw materials may satisfy this requirement. Conversely, increased costs, logistical inconvenience, or market volatility are unlikely to meet the threshold. Liability, Performance, and the Distinction from Breach Suspension of Obligations: A valid invocation of force majeure typically results in the suspension of contractual obligations for the duration of the event. The affected party is relieved from liability for non-performance during this period, provided the invocation is justified and procedurally compliant. Continuity and Resumption of Performance: Importantly, force majeure does not automatically extinguish contractual obligations. Where partial performance remains possible, parties are expected to continue performing to that extent. Upon cessation of the force majeure event, performance must resume within a reasonable time. Wrongful Invocation as Breach: An improper or unsupported invocation of force majeure may itself constitute a breach of contract. In such cases, the non-performing party may be exposed to damages, termination, and indemnity claims. The distinction between legitimate force majeure and breach therefore assumes critical importance. Indemnity and Risk Allocation  The relationship between force majeure and indemnity is governed by contractual drafting. While many agreements exclude liability for failure caused by force majeure, such exclusions are not universal. Pre-existing breaches remain actionable notwithstanding the occurrence of a force majeure event. Similarly, indemnity obligations towards third parties may survive, depending on the structure of the contract. The allocation of risk in such scenarios must therefore be assessed with reference to indemnity clauses, limitation of liability provisions, and survival clauses. Bona Fides and the Risk of Mala Fide Invocation Indian courts scrutinise the conduct of parties invoking force majeure to ensure that the doctrine is not used as a pretext to evade contractual obligations. A bona fide invocation is typically characterised by a demonstrable causal nexus, prompt communication, documentary evidence, and genuine mitigation efforts. In contrast, indicators of mala fide conduct include pre-existing financial distress, selective non-performance, failure to explore alternatives, and delayed invocation. Where a court finds that force majeure has been invoked in bad faith, it may reject the defence and award damages for breach. The requirement of good faith, though not codified, operates as an implicit standard in judicial evaluation. Procedural Requirements: Notice, Mitigation, and Compliance Notice Obligations: Force majeure clauses invariably require prompt notice to the counterparty. Such notice must typically include details of the event, its impact on performance, and the obligations affected. Many contracts also mandate periodic updates and a final notice upon cessation or termination. Failure to comply with notice requirements may disentitle a party from relying on force majeure, even where the underlying event is valid. Duty to Mitigate: The affected party is under an obligation to take reasonable steps to mitigate the impact of the force majeure event. This may include exploring alternative suppliers, routes, or modes of performance. A failure to mitigate can undermine the credibility of the claim. Timeliness of Invocation: Force majeure must be invoked at the earliest reasonable opportunity. Delayed invocation raises questions regarding causation and bona fides, and may weaken the legal position of the invoking party. Delay, Damages, and Termination The consequences of force majeure depend on the nature and duration of the disruption. Temporary impediments typically result in extension of time without liability for damages. However, prolonged force majeure events may trigger termination rights, often after a specified period such as 30 to 90 days. Where force majeure is validly invoked, damages for non-performance during the affected period are generally excluded. Conversely, an invalid invocation exposes the party to contractual damages, including liquidated damages where applicable. Dispute Resolution and Jurisdictional Considerations Disputes relating to force majeure are inherently fact-specific and frequently arise in the context of differing interpretations of causation, mitigation, and procedural compliance. Such disputes are commonly resolved through arbitration, particularly in cross-border contracts, or before Indian courts. Jurisdiction and governing law are determined by the contract and remain unaffected by the occurrence of a force majeure event. Indian adjudicatory forums have demonstrated a consistent preference for strict interpretation and evidentiary rigour in such matters. Conclusion The Iran-Israel-US conflict highlights the increasing intersection between geopolitics and commercial law. While force majeure remains a vital contractual safeguard, its successful invocation under Indian law requires more than the mere occurrence of an external event. It demands precise drafting, clear causation, procedural discipline, and demonstrable good faith. In an environment of heightened global uncertainty, businesses must move beyond boilerplate clauses and adopt a proactive approach to contractual risk management. Ultimately, force majeure is not a doctrine of convenience, but one of careful calibration, where the balance between contractual certainty and equitable relief is maintained through strict legal scrutiny. Authored by - Sukrit Kapoor, Partner https://ksandk.com/people/sukrit-kapoor/ Firm Website: https://ksandk.com/

From Human Cartels to Digital Coordination: Rethinking Section 3(3) in Algorithmic Markets

By Aniket Ghosh Introduction Traditionally, competition law has viewed cartels as the product of deliberately coordinated human activities. These include activities such as price-fixing, market allocation, limiting output, and bid-rigging. Cartels have historically required the existence of explicitly articulated agreements or tacitly agreed upon actions through communication and conscious coordinated strategic actions among competing businesses. Therefore, within this interpretation of cartels, Section 3(3) of the Competition Act, 2002 prohibits agreements made by businesses that are in the same or similar lines of business, presumes that any such agreement would result in an appreciable adverse effect on competition (AAEC), and thus punishes such conduct. In both India and globally, the enforcement of cartel conduct has focused on identifying intent, demonstrating concerted action, and establishing communication through either direct (overt) or circumstantial (covert) evidence such as parallel conduct supported by plus factors. However, in industries where pricing algorithms (or AI-based pricing systems) are used to set prices (like e-commerce, ride-sharing services, airlines, hotels, and e-commerce), the anthropocentric framework is increasingly tested. In sectors such as aforementioned, firms use pricing algorithms that monitor current market conditions continuously (either directly or indirectly), observe the pricing of its competitors, and set price levels accordingly, within real-time intervals. Machine-learning algorithms in particular are capable of generating sustained, parallel pricing results in the absence of direct (overt) communication and conscious coordination. As such, some markets will show cartel effects (e.g., higher average prices, less dispersion in pricing among competitors, lower levels of competition) even when conventional evidence of an agreement does not exist. The advancement of algorithms poses a key challenge regarding the interpretation of the Competition Act as it relates to Section 3(3). When determining whether the coordination through algorithms could fit under section 3(3) of the Competition Act 2002. The relevance of this issue is important as the Peak AAEC assumption is only available where there is an agreement, as notified in section 2(b). The uncertainty surrounding E-commerce markets where coordinated behaviour could happen unintentionally, as well as the lack of existing mechanisms for disciplinary enforcement, calls into question the current interpretation of the Act. Indian courts have consistently ruled that price parallelism alone does not contravene section 3 of the Competition Act. In Rajasthan Cylinders & Containers Ltd. v. Union of India, the Supreme Court cautioned against equating conscious parallelism with cartelisation, recognising that similar conduct may naturally arise in oligopolistic markets. At the same time, decisions such asFx Enterprise Solutions India Pvt Ltd. v. Hyundai Motor India Ltd.1 show the Competition Commission of India’s readiness to infer agreements from indirect facilitation even in the absence of direct horizontal communication. To Reconceptualise Algorithmic Collusion: Human Interaction with Smart Machines For many years, the basis for the study of Cartels (Collusion) is that the participants have intentionally worked with one another through some form of communication and mutual understanding prior to engaging in any conduct. Algorithmic collusion removes this assumption, providing that the pricing decision is made with minimal human intervention by an Automated System which is capable of Learning, Predicting, and Reacting to Market Behaviour. In order to determine whether Algorithmic Collusion fits within Section 3(3) we need to develop a framework that allows for distinguishing different types of Algorithmic Collusion from one another. According to various entities including OECD, there are different models of human versus algorithmic involvement with respect to collusion. The first model is the messenger/executor model, where firms agree to collude on their own through mutual consent and then use algorithms to implement and monitor that cartel. This type of collaboration obviously meets the criteria outlined in Section 3(3) because it is based on mutual agreement between humans. An alternative model for algorithmic collusion is the hub-and-spoke model, whereby a common platform or provider for algorithms coordinates competition between firms. While these firms do not speak to each other directly, the algorithms centralised nature fosters coordinated outcomes. In support of this model India’s jurisprudence view regarding indirect facilitation can be confirmed by the case of Fx Enterprise Solutions v Hyundai Motor India Limited where a vertical arrangement had been found to facilitate horizontal price coordination. The most difficult model of collusion would be the autonomous algorithm model, where independently operating bots observing both markets and competitors learn that co-operation leads to a higher profit than fighting with each other. Such co-operation is produced through cartel-like outcomes without any prior agreement or communication and will be the basis for future litigation and testing of Section 3. Algorithmic Collusion and Tacit Coordination Autonomous algorithmic collusion may appear similar to lawful tacit collusion or conscious parallelism, which competition law tolerates due to the absence of agreement. However, this comparison overlooks key differences. Tacit coordination in oligopolistic markets is constrained by human limitations, strategic uncertainty, and fragile expectations. Algorithmic systems, by contrast, reduce uncertainty, react instantly to deviations, and stabilise coordinated outcomes over time. Artificial intelligence therefore increases the likelihood, durability, and effectiveness of coordination, resulting in greater consumer harm. Under Indian competition law, the delineation of “independent actions” from “communications” helps to assess whether there’s a violation under section 3 of the Act. In addition, the mention of “parallel pricing” in the section implies great difficulty in proving illegal agreements for businesses that utilize algorithms when establishing their pricing strategies. If any conclusion is drawn regarding algorithmic parallelism, it will essentially undermine the possibility of successful licensing or prosecuting any unlawful agreement established between online entities. Under Section 3(3) of the Competition Act, 2002 Proof of an “Agreement” under Section 3(3) does not require communication or intent, but instead focuses on whether an ‘Agreement’ exists (defined as an ‘agreement’ in Section 2(b) as any arrangement, understanding or agreement by two or more companies operating together). This broad definition allows for the possibility of prosecuting algorithmic collusion when companies knowingly and intentionally develop and utilize pricing algorithms that coordinate prices. The challenge now is to establish whether an independent algorithmic pricing arrangement has progressed from “unilateral conduct” to an “attributable agreement” for design, development and deployment of algorithms that produce coordinated prices amongst competing companies. Can Algorithms Be Considered to Have “Agreed” Under Section 3(3)? Indian Courts understand that Cartels are essentially hidden and that agreements can be assumed based on the actions and circumstances of the parties involved. The Supreme Court in the case of Excel Crop Care Limited v. CCI2 has confirmed that the cumulative evidence of circumstances can be used to establish an agreement under Section 3; however, the Courts have cautioned against treating parallel behaviour as being equal to collusion, as illustrated by the Rajasthan Cylinders case3 which established that both parties must provide “plus factors” to indicate collusion. Algorithmic Collusion disrupts this equilibrium. Where companies utilise similar or compatible algorithms to set prices, monitor one another and react to competitors, sustained parallel pricing may be an indication of something more than rational interdependence, it may also be indicative of coordination through algorithms producing cartel-like effects without the use of quantitative methods of communication. A common defence to Algorithmic Collusion is the assertion that there is an absence of human intent as the prices are determined by autonomous systems; however, this undermines the very reason for the existence of Section 3 of the Competition Act. Competition law attributes the conduct of the enterprise to the enterprise themselves and not the methods or tools that they have adopted in order to undertake business. Algorithms are an integral part of an enterprise’s structure and are established and executed by the enterprise with certain goals in mind. The enterprise that chooses to establish a system that has the potential to produce collusive behaviour and that is always likely to produce anti-competitive behaviour should not be exempt from liability for these results because the enterprise is not involved in the day-to-day operations of the system. Indirectly, Indian law lends credence to this conclusion by establishing that in Fx Enterprise Solutions, liability arose from a system’s coordinated structure and functionality rather than from explicit communications. The reasoning behind this approach is equally applicable to algorithmic pricing systems that operate on the basis of generic market signals. It is therefore possible to take a principled approach to this issue by changing the focus of the analysis from the subjective intent of firms to their awareness or foreseeability of the circumstances in which the use of a particular algorithm may weaken competition and sustain supra-competitive prices. Thus, if one firm knows or ought to know that its use of algorithmic pricing systems results in weakened competition, or sustains supra-competitive prices, that firm’s continued use of that pricing algorithm can be seen to amount to an “action in concert” as defined in Section 2(b), regardless of whether that firm intended to engage in an anti-competitive act. There is ample support in comparative jurisprudence, as illustrated in Eturas UAB v. Lithuania, to hold firms liable for knowing of and acquiescing to the existence and operation of an anti-competitive system. Indian law is well positioned to adopt this reasoning and apply it without necessitating the creation of a new legal doctrine or framework. Conclusion The rise of algorithmic pricing has created the need to rethink how to enforce cartel provisions in Section 3 of the Competition Act, 2002. The law was originally created to address agreements between people, but algorithms create new dimensions of illegal conduct because they can create cartels based solely on the interaction of algorithms. Firms should not be able to say that it is legal or acceptable to engage in algorithmic collusion, just because it has been made through an algorithm. Section 3(3) does not preclude the use of circumstantial evidence to infer the existence of cartel-type behaviour, therefore, there should be no reason to prevent the making of algorithms to facilitate collusive activity. Further, since these algorithms function as “autonomous” systems, firms cannot use the argument of the delegation of authority to avoid liability when it is foreseeable that the actions of these autonomous systems will result in sustained anti-competitive damage. At the same time, enforcement must remain principled. An effects-based interpretative approach focusing on market outcomes, foreseeability, and control over algorithm design offers a balanced solution. As markets become increasingly governed by code rather than communication, competition law must evolve to scrutinise the competitive implications of algorithms themselves. Fx Enter. Sols. India Pvt. Ltd. v. Hyundai Motor India Ltd., MANU/CO/0041/2017 ↩︎ Excel Crop Care Ltd. v. Competition Comm’n of India MANU/SC/0588/2017 ↩︎ Rajasthan Cylinders & Containers Ltd. v. Union of India MANU/SC/1108/2018 ↩︎ Authored  by - Aniket Ghosh, Partner https://ksandk.com/people/aniket-ghosh/ Firm Website: https://ksandk.com/ 

Karta’s Personal Liability Where HUF Assets Are Insufficient to Satisfy an Arbitral Award: Bombay High Court Clarifies Position

By Athira T.S Introduction The Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) occupies a distinctive position in Indian law. While not a separate juristic entity in the same manner as a corporation or partnership, the HUF is nevertheless recognised for purposes of property ownership, taxation, and litigation. The affairs of the HUF are managed by the Karta, who exercises wide powers in relation to the management of joint family property and, in many cases, the conduct of family businesses. Legal Framework Governing HUF Liability Under classical Hindu law, a joint family consists of lineal descendants from a common ancestor along with their spouses and unmarried daughters. Property held by the family is collectively owned by the coparceners, with the Karta acting as the manager of the joint estate. The Karta traditionally enjoyed broad managerial powers, including authority to: manage joint family property; represent the HUF in legal proceedings; enter into contracts for purposes of family benefit or necessity; and conduct business on behalf of the joint family. While historically the position of Karta was generally occupied by the senior-most male member, judicial developments and statutory reforms have clarified that women may also act as Kartas where they are the senior-most coparceners. The Karta’s acts, when undertaken for legal necessity, family benefit, or in the ordinary course of business, are capable of binding the joint family estate. Liability of Coparceners and the Karta in Commercial Transactions A Hindu joint family is distinct from corporate entities in that it does not possess an independent legal personality. Nevertheless, courts recognise the HUF as a unit for certain legal purposes, particularly in matters relating to property and business operations. Where a Karta carries on a trading business on behalf of the HUF, the general principles governing liability are well established: Joint family property is primarily liable for debts incurred in the course of such business. Coparceners are liable only to the extent of their interest in the joint family property, unless they have independently participated in or authorised the transaction. The Karta may incur personal liability to third parties, particularly in commercial dealings where he represents the HUF and contracts on its behalf. The Supreme Court recognised these principles in Shiv Bhagwan Moti Ram Saraogi v. Onkarmal Ishar Dass1 (1952), noting that while coparceners’ liability is limited to their share in the joint family property, the Karta managing a trading business may incur personal liability toward third parties dealing with the business. Such liability arises from the Karta’s representative role in commercial transactions and the authority he exercises in conducting the business. However, the extent of personal liability may depend on the nature of the transaction and the contractual arrangements between the parties. Abolition of the Doctrine of Pious Obligation Historically, Hindu law recognised the doctrine of pious obligation, under which sons were required to discharge their father’s debts, provided the debts were not incurred for immoral or illegal purposes. The Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 significantly altered this position by abolishing the doctrine in respect of debts incurred after the amendment. Consequently, sons are no longer automatically liable for their father’s debts merely by virtue of this doctrine. Importantly, however, the abolition of the doctrine does not affect the established principles governing the Karta’s liability in commercial transactions conducted on behalf of a trading HUF. Enforcement of Arbitral Awards Against HUFs The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 provides that arbitral awards are enforceable in the same manner as decrees of a civil court. Under Section 36, once an award becomes enforceable, the successful party may initiate execution proceedings against the judgment debtor. Where the judgment debtor is a HUF engaged in business, creditors may ordinarily proceed against joint family assets. The question that arises in practice is whether execution may extend to the personal assets of the Karta where the joint family property proves insufficient. This question formed the central issue before the Bombay High Court in the present case. The Bombay High Court’s Decision Factual Background In Manjeet Singh T. Anand v. Nishant Enterprises HUF, the petitioner had obtained an arbitral award against a HUF operating a trading business under the name Nishant Enterprises. When the award holder initiated execution proceedings, it emerged that the joint family assets were insufficient to satisfy the award amount. The award holder therefore sought to proceed against the personal immovable property of the Karta. The Karta objected to this course of action, arguing that the arbitral award had been passed against the HUF and not against him in his individual capacity, and therefore his personal assets could not be attached. Issues Before the Court The principal questions before the Court were: Whether the Karta of a trading HUF may incur personal liability for business debts incurred on behalf of the HUF, and Whether an arbitral award against the HUF may be executed against the Karta’s personal assets where joint family property is insufficient. Court’s Reasoning Justice G.S. Kulkarni examined the established principles of Hindu law governing trading HUFs and the liability arising from commercial transactions undertaken by the Karta. The Court observed that when a Karta conducts business on behalf of a joint family, he represents the HUF in dealings with third parties and exercises substantial authority in the conduct of the business. In such circumstances, creditors dealing with the business are entitled to rely on the Karta’s authority and may hold him personally liable where the joint family estate is unable to discharge the debt. Relying on established jurisprudence, including Shiv Bhagwan Moti Ram Saraogi, the Court reaffirmed the distinction between the liabilities of coparceners and the Karta: Coparceners are liable only to the extent of their share in the joint family property, unless they have independently participated in the transaction. The Karta, by contrast, may incur personal liability in respect of commercial obligations undertaken in the course of the HUF business. Accordingly, the Court held that where joint family property is insufficient to satisfy the arbitral award, execution proceedings may extend to the Karta’s personal assets, subject to the determination of liability in the execution proceedings. Directions of the Court On the facts of the case, the Court permitted the execution proceedings to continue and allowed the attachment of the Karta’s personal immovable property, in addition to the assets of the HUF, in order to satisfy the arbitral award. The decision clarifies that an award creditor need not initiate separate proceedings where the legal principles governing liability permit execution against the Karta personally. Significance of the Decision The Bombay High Court’s ruling reinforces several important principles relevant to creditors and HUF-managed businesses: Trading HUFs do not operate as liability shields comparable to corporate structures. The Karta may incur personal liability for commercial obligations undertaken on behalf of the HUF. Arbitral awards against a trading HUF may, in appropriate circumstances, be executed against the Karta’s personal assets where joint family property is insufficient. For creditors, the judgment provides clarity regarding enforcement strategies when dealing with family-run businesses. For HUFs engaged in commercial activity, it serves as a reminder that the managerial authority of the Karta carries with it significant legal exposure. Conclusion The Bombay High Court’s decision in Manjeet Singh T. Anand v. Nishant Enterprises HUF reiterates a long-standing principle of Hindu law: the Karta of a trading joint family may incur personal liability for obligations arising from the family business. Where joint family assets are insufficient to satisfy an arbitral award, creditors may seek execution against the Karta’s personal property, subject to the applicable legal principles. The judgment is particularly significant in the context of modern commercial disputes involving family-run enterprises. It highlights that while the HUF structure remains an important legal and economic institution, it does not operate as a complete shield against personal liability in commercial transactions conducted by the Karta. Shiv Bhagwan Moti Ram Saraogi v. Onkarmal Ishar Dass, AIR 1952 SC 60 : 1952 SCR 1104 ↩︎ Authored by Athira T.S, Associate Partnerhttps://ksandk.com/people/athira-t-s/ Firm Website: https://ksandk.com/

Digital Forced Labour in the Age of AI: A Human Rights Perspective

By Rohitaashv Sinha Introduction The rapid advancement of Artificial Intelligence (AI) and digital platforms has fundamentally transformed the nature of work. Labour is no longer confined to physical workplaces; instead, it is increasingly mediated through digital infrastructures that enable cross-border participation in global labour markets. While this transformation has enhanced efficiency, flexibility, and access to economic opportunities, it has also produced new and often invisible forms of labour exploitation. One such emerging phenomenon is digital forced labour, which raises serious concerns under international human rights and labour law frameworks. This article examines digital forced labour through a human rights lens, analysing its characteristics, legal implications, and regulatory challenges, with particular attention to vulnerable populations, including children. Digital Forced Labour and Human Rights Digital Forced Labour (DFL) may be understood as labour performed through digital platforms under conditions that undermine genuine consent. While not always involving physical coercion, such labour is often driven by economic compulsion, asymmetrical power structures, and restrictive platform governance. Typical forms of digital labour include: Data labelling and annotation for AI systems Content moderation Micro-tasking (e.g., CAPTCHA solving, tagging, categorisation) These forms of work are frequently characterised by: Extremely low and inconsistent remuneration Lack of transparency in task allocation and payment systems Absence of formal contractual protections Limited or no grievance redressal mechanisms Workers often operate under opaque algorithmic systems, where refusal to perform tasks may result in penalties, suspension, or deactivation without explanation. Crucially, workers are rarely informed about how their labour contributes to downstream AI systems or commercial applications. Contrary to the perception of platform work as flexible and autonomous, many workers function within highly controlled digital environments, marked by surveillance, dependency, and limited bargaining power. The absence of identifiable employers and the fragmentation of work further dilute accountability. Algorithmic Control and Economic Coercion A defining feature of digital forced labour is the use of algorithmic management systems to control labour conditions. Platforms determine: Task allocation Wage calculation Performance evaluation Continued access to work These automated systems often lack transparency and accountability. Workers may be “deactivated” or penalised without due process, effectively excluding them from their primary source of livelihood. Over time, economic dependency on such platforms may erode meaningful choice, creating conditions analogous to coercion. While not traditionally recognised as “force,” such structural and economic compulsion aligns with evolving interpretations of forced labour in international law. Transnational Nature and Regulatory Gaps Digital labour markets are inherently transnational. Companies frequently outsource labour to jurisdictions with lower labour standards and weaker enforcement mechanisms. This results in: Diffused accountability Regulatory arbitrage Limited access to legal remedies for workers The lack of jurisdictional clarity makes enforcement of labour standards particularly challenging. Workers often do not know which legal regime governs their work, further exacerbating their vulnerability. Digital Child Labour This includes: Content creation (videos, livestreams, gaming content) Data labelling and repetitive micro-tasks Participation in monetised digital ecosystems controlled by adults or intermediaries In many cases: Children lack control over their earnings and digital identity Work conditions involve long hours, psychological pressure, and performance metrics tied to monetisation There is little to no regulatory oversight regarding age verification, working conditions, or compensation Additionally, children face heightened risks of: Data exploitation and loss of privacy Online manipulation, harassment, and blackmail Misuse of their likeness through emerging technologies such as deepfakes In extreme cases, children may be compelled to produce digital outputs or virtual assets without informed consent or fair compensation. Existing legal frameworks largely designed for physical labour contexts are inadequate to address these evolving risks. Legal Framework: International Human Rights Law The prohibition of forced labour is well established under international law, though its application to digital contexts requires interpretative expansion. Key instruments include: Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR): Prohibits slavery and servitude (Article 4) and recognises the right to just and favourable conditions of work International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR): Prohibits forced or compulsory labour (Article 8) International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR): Guarantees fair wages, safe working conditions, and a dignified standard of living ILO Forced Labour Convention, 1930 (No. 29)1: Defines forced labour as work exacted under menace of penalty and without voluntary consent Abolition of Forced Labour Convention, 1957 (No. 105): Mandates the elimination of all forms of forced labour Protocol of 2014 to Convention No. 29: Recognises contemporary forms of forced labour and strengthens obligations on States While these instruments provide a robust normative foundation, they were conceived prior to the rise of platform-based and AI-driven labour systems. Consequently, they do not explicitly address: Algorithmic control Platform accountability Data exploitation as a form of labour extraction Judicial Interpretation: Expanding the Concept of Forced Labour Indian constitutional jurisprudence has adopted an expansive interpretation of forced labour2 under Article 23 of the Constitution, which is instructive in the digital context. People’s Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of India3: The Supreme Court held that labour extracted under economic compulsion may constitute forced labour. Sanjit Roy v. State of Rajasthan4: Payment of wages below the statutory minimum was deemed violative of Article 23, even absent physical coercion. Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India5: The Court linked forced labour to violations of human dignity and Article 21 (right to life), imposing a positive obligation on the State to eradicate such practices. Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation6: Recognised the right to livelihood as an integral component of the right to life. These precedents support the argument that economic dependency, unfair remuneration, and structural inequality hallmarks of digital labour platforms, may fall within the constitutional understanding of forced labour. State Obligations and Regulatory Challenges States are obligated under both constitutional and international law to: Prevent forced labour Protect workers from exploitation Ensure access to effective remedies However, regulatory responses to digital labour remain inadequate due to: Classification of workers as independent contractors Lack of platform accountability Absence of transparency in algorithmic systems Weak enforcement across jurisdictions The result is a regulatory vacuum in which workers operate without meaningful protections. The Way Forward Legal Recognition of Platform Labour: Clear classification frameworks are needed to determine employment status and extend labour protections to platform workers. Algorithmic Transparency and Accountability: Platforms must be required to disclose decision-making processes affecting workers, including task allocation and deactivation. Strengthening Child Protection Frameworks: Specific safeguards must be introduced to regulate children’s participation in digital economies, including consent, compensation, and working conditions. Access to Remedies: Workers must have access to effective grievance redressal mechanisms, including cross-border dispute resolution systems. International Cooperation: Given the global nature of digital labour, harmonised international standards are essential. Conclusion The digital transformation of labour has not eliminated forced labour; rather, it has reshaped it into more subtle and technologically mediated forms. Digital forced labour operates through economic coercion, algorithmic control, and regulatory gaps, challenging traditional legal definitions of “force.” While existing human rights frameworks provide a strong normative foundation, they are insufficiently equipped to address the complexities of AI-driven labour systems. Vulnerable populations particularly children, remain at significant risk. A rights-based approach, grounded in transparency, accountability, and dignity, is essential to ensure that technological progress does not come at the cost of fundamental human rights. As Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer aptly observed, the law must evolve with changing times; in the age of AI, it must do so with a firm commitment to safeguarding human dignity in the digital sphere. https://www.ilo.org/publications/major-publications/global-estimates-modern-slavery-forced-labour-and-forced-marriage ↩︎ MANU/SC/0039/1985. ↩︎ MANU/SC/0038/1982 ↩︎ MANU/SC/0254/1983. ↩︎ MANU/SC/0051/1983. ↩︎ MANU/SC/0039/1985. ↩︎ Authored by Rohitaashv Sinha https://ksandk.com/people/rohitaashv-sinha/ https://ksandk.com/

Strengthening REIT Governance in India: An Analysis of SEBI’s 2023 Regulatory Reforms

By Aurelia Menezes Introduction India’s Real Estate Investment Trust (REIT) regime has witnessed significant regulatory evolution in recent years, driven by the need to enhance governance standards, strengthen investor protection, and align with global best practices. In 2023, the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) introduced a series of amendments and circulars impacting REITs, particularly through changes to the SEBI (Listing Obligations and Disclosure Requirements) Regulations (LODR Regulations), the SEBI (Real Estate Investment Trusts) Regulations, 2014, and the SEBI (Issue and Listing of Non-Convertible Securities) Regulations, 2021.1 These reforms collectively aim to improve transparency, institutional accountability, and stakeholder participation within the REIT ecosystem. Enhanced Governance Framework under LODR Amendments, 2023 The amendments to the LODR Regulations mark a significant step toward harmonising REIT governance with that of listed companies. Independent Directors and Board Oversight:The revised framework clarifies the definition and eligibility criteria for independent directors, reinforcing objectivity and reducing conflicts of interest at the board level. This is particularly relevant for REIT Managers, where governance oversight is centralised. Senior Management Accountability:SEBI has introduced greater clarity around the roles, responsibilities, and disclosure obligations of senior management personnel, ensuring enhanced accountability in decision-making processes. Auditor Independence and Rotation:Provisions relating to auditor eligibility and mandatory rotation have been strengthened to safeguard audit independence and improve financial reporting quality. Expanded Scope of Limited Review:The requirement for limited review now extends to entities whose financials are consolidated with REITs (including HoldCos and SPVs), thereby enhancing transparency across the REIT structure. REIT-Specific Governance Alignment SEBI has extended several LODR compliance requirements to REITs by adapting terminology and governance constructs to suit their unique structure. Key definitional alignments include: “Listed entity” → REIT Manager “Board of Directors” → Board of the Manager “Subsidiary” → HoldCo / Special Purpose Vehicle (SPV) “Compliance Officer” → Company Secretary2 This harmonisation ensures consistency in regulatory interpretation while preserving the structural distinctiveness of REITs. Reforms under SEBI (NCS) Regulations, 2023 Amendments to the SEBI (Issue and Listing of Non-Convertible Securities) Regulations, 2021 introduced important safeguards for debenture holders. Nominee Director Rights of Debenture Trustees In the event of a default (as defined under the SEBI (Debenture Trustees) Regulations, 1993), debenture trustees are empowered to nominate a director to the board of the issuer (including REIT Managers, where applicable). Entities are required to: Incorporate such provisions in their trust deeds and constitutional documents; and Appoint nominee directors within prescribed timelines. This reform strengthens creditor protection and enhances oversight in stressed scenarios. Key Amendments to REIT Regulations (2023) SEBI’s 2023 amendments to the SEBI (Real Estate Investment Trusts) Regulations, 2014 introduce several governance-focused reforms: Unitholder Nomination Rights Eligible unitholders holding at least 10% of outstanding units are now entitled to nominate a director to the board of the REIT Manager. This reform: Enhances investor participation in governance; Introduces checks on managerial decision-making; and Aligns with global stewardship practices. Such nominations are subject to eligibility criteria and evaluation mechanisms prescribed by the Manager and must comply with SEBI’s stewardship principles. Sponsor Holding and Governance Reforms SEBI has refined provisions relating to sponsor lock-in and minimum holding requirements. Sponsors and sponsor groups are generally required to maintain a minimum holding (typically 15%) for a specified period post-listing, ensuring alignment of interests between sponsors and unitholders. Introduction of Self-Sponsored REITs A key structural reform is the introduction of the self-sponsored REIT model, wherein the Manager assumes both managerial and sponsor roles. This framework: Enables mature and institutionally robust Managers to operate independently; Provides an exit pathway for existing sponsors; and Introduces flexibility in REIT structuring. However, conversion to a self-sponsored model is subject to stringent eligibility and compliance requirements prescribed by SEBI. Key SEBI Circulars Impacting REITs (2023) SEBI supplemented regulatory amendments with multiple circulars to operationalise governance and compliance requirements: Offer for Sale (OFS) Framework:A standardised mechanism was introduced for the sale of REIT units through stock exchanges, improving liquidity and price discovery. Virtual Unitholder Meetings:The permission to conduct unitholder meetings via video conferencing, which was initially introduced during the pandemic, has been made permanent, enhancing accessibility and participation. Legal Entity Identifier (LEI) Requirement:REITs with listed debt securities must obtain and report a Legal Entity Identifier (LEI), strengthening transparency in financial transactions. Mandatory Dematerialisation:Securities of HoldCos and SPVs underlying REIT structures are required to be held in dematerialised form, improving traceability and reducing operational risks. Enhanced Compliance Reporting:REIT Managers must submit the Annual Secretarial Compliance Reports; and the Quarterly Governance Compliance Reports, both within prescribed timelines using standardised formats. Unit Pricing Framework:Revised guidelines for pricing REIT units in public issuances and institutional placements aim to improve transparency and flexibility. Trading Window Restrictions:Insider trading norms, including trading window restrictions, have been extended more broadly to listed entities, including REITs. Online Dispute Resolution (ODR) Mechanism:SEBI has operationalised an ODR portal to facilitate efficient resolution of investor disputes through mediation and arbitration. Investor Grievance Redressal via SCORES:The SEBI Complaints Redress System mandates time-bound resolution of investor complaints, reinforcing accountability. Conclusion SEBI’s 2023 regulatory reforms represent a significant advancement in the governance architecture of REITs in India. By strengthening board independence, enhancing disclosure standards, empowering investors, and introducing structural innovations such as self-sponsored REITs, the regulatory framework has become more robust and investor-centric. These developments not only align India’s REIT regime with global best practices but also reinforce market confidence, improve transparency, and support sustainable growth in the real estate investment sector. As the REIT ecosystem continues to mature, stakeholders including sponsors, managers, institutional investors, and regulators must proactively adapt to this evolving compliance landscape to fully realise the benefits of these reforms. https://www.sebi.gov.in/sebiweb/home/HomeAction.do?doListing=yes&sid=1&ssid=3&smid=0%20(Accessed:%2007%20January%202024). ↩︎ SEBI. (2021, August 3). Securities and Exchange Board of India (Real Estate Investment Trusts) Regulations, 2014. ↩︎ Authored by Aurelia Menezes, Partner https://ksandk.com/people/aurelia-menezes https://ksandk.com/

D&O Insurance in the Age of Data Governance: Premium Realities under India’s DPDP Regime

Introduction India’s enactment of the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 (“DPDP Act”) marks a decisive shift toward a modern data protection regime anchored in accountability, consent, and enforcement. While the statute is primarily directed at “data fiduciaries,” its implications extend well beyond operational compliance. At the boardroom level, the Act has triggered a reassessment of governance responsibilities, risk allocation, and critically Directors and Officers (“D&O”) insurance. A key question now confronting corporates and insurers alike is whether the DPDP Act has materially altered the D&O risk landscape. The emerging answer is nuanced but unmistakable: increased premiums and tighter underwriting are not only real, but structurally justified. The DPDP Framework and Board-Level Accountability The DPDP Act imposes obligations on entities that determine the purpose and means of processing personal data. These include: lawful processing based on consent or legitimate use; implementation of reasonable security safeguards; prompt breach notification; and accountability for third-party data processors. Although the statute does not expressly create automatic personal liability for directors, it embeds a governance expectation: boards must ensure that adequate systems, controls, and oversight mechanisms are in place. This expectation aligns with broader principles of fiduciary duty under Indian company law, where directors are required to act with due and reasonable care. Consequently, any failure in data governance may be framed not merely as a compliance lapse, but as a failure of oversight, a cornerstone trigger for D&O claims globally. The Changing Risk Profile for Directors The DPDP Act introduces a risk environment characterised by three features: High-Value Regulatory Penalties The statute contemplates significant monetary penalties, potentially up to ₹250 crore per instance. While such penalties are imposed on the company, they often catalyse derivative claims, shareholder actions, or regulatory scrutiny of board conduct. Expanded Litigation Pathways Data breaches, consent failures, or misuse of personal data may give rise to: regulatory proceedings before the Data Protection Board; civil claims from affected individuals; and shareholder actions alleging governance failures. In each case, directors may be named not for the breach itself, but for inadequate supervision or risk management. Attribution through Governance Failures Modern D&O jurisprudence increasingly centres on whether boards exercised appropriate oversight. Under the DPDP regime, lapses such as failure to implement cybersecurity frameworks, inadequate vendor due diligence, or delayed breach response can be attributed to board-level neglect. Insurance Market Response: Premiums, Exclusions, and Scrutiny The Indian insurance market supported by global reinsurers has responded predictably to this evolving risk: Premium Inflation: Data-intensive sectors such as technology, fintech, healthcare, and e-commerce are witnessing noticeable increases in D&O premiums. Insurers are pricing in the uncertainty of enforcement and the potential for high-value claims. Narrowing Coverage: Policies are increasingly: carving out cyber-related incidents or subjecting them to sub-limits; excluding regulatory fines where legally permissible; and tightening definitions of “wrongful acts” to limit exposure. Higher Retentions and Co-Insurance: Insured entities are being required to retain a greater portion of risk, reflecting insurers’ cautious stance. Enhanced Underwriting Due Diligence: Underwriters now routinely evaluate: existence of a data protection officer or equivalent function; maturity of cybersecurity infrastructure; incident response protocols; vendor and processor risk management frameworks; and board-level reporting mechanisms on data governance. In effect, insurance pricing is becoming a proxy for governance quality. The Interplay Between Cyber Insurance and D&O Cover A critical development in the post-DPDP landscape is the functional separation between cyber insurance and D&O insurance. Cyber insurance addresses first-party and operational losses such as forensic investigation, system restoration, and breach notification costs. D&O insurance, by contrast, responds to claims alleging mismanagement, breach of duty, or failure of oversight by directors and officers. Historically, some overlap existed between these products. However, insurers are now actively delineating boundaries, resulting in potential coverage gaps if organisations rely on D&O policies alone. A coordinated insurance strategy is therefore essential. Legal Position: Personal Liability versus Allegational Risk It bears emphasis that the DPDP Act does not, in itself, impose strict personal liability on directors for every contravention. However, two factors sustain D&O exposure: Derivative and secondary liability frameworks under Indian law may still implicate directors where offences occur with their consent, connivance, or attributable neglect. D&O policies are triggered by allegations, not final adjudications. Even unproven claims can generate substantial defence costs. Thus, the rise in premiums reflects not only actual liability risk, but also the cost of defending governance-related claims in an increasingly litigious environment. Strategic Considerations for Boards In this evolving landscape, boards must move beyond a compliance-centric approach and adopt a governance-led strategy. Key measures include: Institutionalising Data Governance: Establish formal reporting lines to the board on data protection risks and compliance status. Documenting Oversight: Maintain detailed records of board deliberations, risk assessments, and decisions relating to data governance. Strengthening Vendor Management: Ensure contractual and operational safeguards when engaging data processors, with clear allocation of responsibilities. Testing Incident Response Mechanisms: Conduct periodic simulations to evaluate breach readiness and response timelines. Aligning Insurance Architecture: Review D&O and cyber policies holistically to identify and address coverage gaps. Such steps not only mitigate legal exposure but also favourably influence underwriting outcomes, potentially stabilising or reducing premium escalation. Conclusion The DPDP Act represents more than a regulatory milestone; it signals a broader transformation in how data risk is perceived and governed in India. For directors and officers, this transformation translates into heightened scrutiny, expanded allegational exposure, and a recalibrated insurance market. The increase in D&O premiums is neither incidental nor temporary. It is a rational response to a legal regime that elevates data governance to the core of corporate accountability. Organisations that proactively embed robust oversight mechanisms will not only enhance compliance but also position themselves advantageously in negotiations with insurers. In the final analysis, D&O insurance under the DPDP era is no longer a passive safeguard but an active reflection of governance maturity. Authored by Aniket Ghosh, Partner  https://ksandk.com/people/aniket-ghosh/ https://ksandk.com/

Strengthening Merger Oversight in India

By Surbhi Kapoor Introduction The merger control regime in India has undergone significant transformation following recent reforms under the Competition Act, 2002. Pursuant to the Competition (Amendment) Act, 2023 and subsequent regulations operationalised in 2024, the Competition Commission of India (CCI) has introduced a more structured, modern, and principle-driven framework for reviewing combinations. Key reforms include the introduction of the Deal Value Threshold (DVT), refinement of exemption rules, formal recognition of the concept of material influence within the definition of control, changes in the assessment of competitive overlaps, streamlined approval timelines, and the establishment of mechanisms to monitor compliance with post-approval conditions. In May 2025, the CCI issued updated Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) clarifying the implementation of these reforms. Between late 2024 and December 31, 2025, the CCI approved 162 combination filings, approximately 12.36% of which were notified under the DVT framework reflecting its growing practical significance.1 Deal Value Threshold: Expanding the Scope of Notification Traditionally, combinations were notifiable based on asset and turnover thresholds prescribed under the Act. However, the introduction of the Deal Value Threshold, pursuant to the Competition (Amendment) Act, 2023 and operationalised through regulations in 2024, has significantly expanded the scope of notifiable transactions. Under this framework, a transaction must be notified where: The deal value exceeds INR 20 billion; and The target enterprise has substantial business operations in India (SBOI). Importantly, DVT-based notifications apply irrespective of whether traditional asset or turnover thresholds are met, and the de minimis (target) exemption is not available in such cases. The CCI has adopted a broad interpretation of “deal value”, which includes: Cash and non-cash consideration; Deferred payments and earn-outs; Non-compete fees and licensing arrangements; Any additional consideration payable within a specified period post-closing. Where deal value is not explicitly ascertainable, parties are expected to undertake a reasonable, good-faith estimation based on available information. Substantial Business Operations in India (SBOI) For the DVT to apply, the target must have substantial business operations in India. The regulations and accompanying guidance provide indicative criteria for determining SBOI. A target is generally considered to meet this threshold where: Its Indian turnover constitutes at least 10% of its global turnover, and exceeds INR 5 billion; or In digital markets, a significant proportion (typically 10% or more) of its users are located in India.2 These thresholds ensure that transactions with a meaningful nexus to Indian markets are subject to regulatory scrutiny. Redefining “Control”: The Material Influence Standard The concept of “control” remains central to merger notification requirements. Under Indian competition law, “control” has been interpreted expansively by the CCI and now expressly includes the ability to exercise material influence over the management or strategic commercial decisions of an enterprise. This approach, developed through decisional practice and now codified, recognises that control may arise even in the absence of majority shareholding. Factors that may indicate control include: Rights to appoint or remove directors or key managerial personnel; Veto rights over business plans, budgets, or strategic decisions; Shareholding coupled with governance or contractual rights. While shareholding above 25% may, depending on accompanying rights, indicate the ability to exercise material influence, control is ultimately assessed on a case-by-case basis. Importantly, not all investor protections constitute control. Rights such as: Information rights; Tag-along or exit rights; Anti-dilution protections; generally do not, in isolation, amount to control. The CCI has also clarified that a change in control includes not only a shift from joint to sole control, but also a change in the quality or degree of influence, such as enhanced governance rights or exit of an existing controlling shareholder. Commercially Sensitive Information (CSI) The updated FAQs provide clarity on what constitutes commercially sensitive information (CSI). CSI includes: Pricing strategies, cost structures, and profit margins; Market shares and customer data; Production levels and capacity; Business plans, R&D strategies, and internal reports. Conversely, the following are generally not considered CSI: Publicly available information; Historical data not relevant to current decision-making; Aggregated or anonymised data; Standard financial statements prepared under accounting norms. These clarifications are particularly relevant in assessing permissible information exchange during transaction evaluation and overlap analysis. Revised Exemption Framework The 2024 reforms have narrowed and refined the scope of exemptions, particularly in relation to minority investments. To qualify as a solely for investment exemption, an acquirer must: Hold not more than 25% of shares or voting rights; Not acquire control; Not obtain board representation or observer rights; Not access CSI; Not have horizontal, vertical, or complementary overlaps with the target (except in limited cases where shareholding is below 10% and other conditions are met). Other exemptions include: Incremental acquisitions, provided they do not result in control or new rights; Intra-group transactions, where there is no change in control; Demerger transactions, where shareholding remains proportionate. Overall, exemptions are now more conditional and narrowly construed. Interconnected Transactions The CCI requires that interconnected transactions be notified as a single combination. Interconnectedness is assessed based on factors such as: Simultaneous execution; Conditionality between transactions; Common commercial objective; Financial interdependence; Evidence of a shared “meeting of minds.” Even transactions that may be exempt individually may become notifiable when part of a larger interconnected structure. Open Offers and Market Purchases The revised framework permits certain acquisitions such as open offers and market purchases to be completed prior to CCI approval, subject to safeguards. Key conditions include: Filing notice within the prescribed timeline from the triggering acquisition; Not exercising voting or control rights prior to approval; Maintaining the target as a separate economic entity. While economic benefits (such as dividends) may be received, control rights remain suspended until approval. Overlap Assessment and Affiliate Test The revised framework expands the concept of affiliates for overlap assessment. An enterprise may be considered an affiliate not only based on shareholding or board representation, but also where it has: The right or ability to access commercially sensitive information; or The ability to exercise material influence. This broader test impacts: Identification of horizontal, vertical, and complementary overlaps; Eligibility for the green channel route. Approval Timelines and Target Exemption The reforms have introduced stricter timelines: The CCI must form a prima facie opinion within 30 calendar days; The overall review period has been reduced from 210 days to 150 days. Where no prima facie opinion is formed within the statutory period, the combination may, subject to applicable conditions, be deemed approved. The de minimis (target) exemption has also been revised: Assets in India ≤ INR 4.5 billion; or Turnover in India ≤ INR 12.5 billion. However, this exemption does not apply to DVT-based filings. Monitoring Post-Approval Compliance The CCI now has explicit powers to appoint an independent monitoring agency to oversee compliance with conditions attached to merger approvals. The monitoring agency must: Be independent and free from conflicts of interest; Track implementation of remedies; Report instances of non-compliance; Maintain confidentiality of sensitive information. Costs of monitoring are typically borne by the parties to the transaction. Conclusion The reforms introduced between 2024 and 2025 mark a structural evolution of India’s merger control regime. The introduction of the Deal Value Threshold, formal recognition of material influence, refinement of exemptions, expansion of overlap assessment, and streamlined timelines collectively enhance both regulatory certainty and enforcement capability. The framework reflects a shift toward substance over form, ensuring that transactions with a real impact on Indian markets are subject to scrutiny, irrespective of traditional thresholds. Parties engaging in transactions involving India must now adopt a proactive and structured approach, carefully assessing notification triggers, control dynamics, competitive overlaps, and compliance obligations at an early stage. https://www.cci.gov.in/images/whatsnew/en/faq-book-english-compressed1747724324.pdf ↩︎ The Competition Act defines ‘turnover’ as the turnover which has been certified by the statutory auditor on the basis of the last available audited accounts of the company in the financial year immediately preceding the financial year in parties notify a transaction. Such turnover in India is determined by excluding intra-group sales, indirect taxes, trade discounts and all amounts generated through assets or business from customers outside India, as certified by the statutory auditor. ↩︎ Authored by Surbhi Kapoor, Partner  https://ksandk.com/people/surbhi-kapoor/ https://ksandk.com/

Public Utilities as Fiduciaries, Not Arbitrary Authorities: Calcutta High Court Quashes Inflated Electricity Demand

By Nivedita Bhardwaj Introduction The supply of electricity, a critical public utility, is not merely a commercial activity but a statutory obligation imbued with public law responsibilities. Distribution licensees often state-controlled entities, operate within a framework that demands fairness, transparency, and accountability. Disputes relating to excessive billing, defective meters, and retrospective demands frequently test the limits of administrative discretion. In a significant ruling in West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Company Limited v. Jyotish Chandra Rice Mill (F.M.A. 179 of 2023, decided February 2026)1, the Calcutta High Court emphatically held that a public utility functions as a fiduciary, not an authoritarian administrator. The Court set aside a supplementary electricity demand of over ₹47 lakh raised by West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Company Limited, finding it to be speculative, unsupported by evidence, and contrary to statutory regulations. Statutory and Regulatory Framework Electricity Law and Metering Obligations Under the Electricity Act, 2003: Section 55 mandates supply of electricity through a correct and duly tested meter Section 181 empowers State Electricity Regulatory Commissions to frame binding regulations, including supply codes In West Bengal, the governing framework is the West Bengal Electricity Regulatory Commission (Electricity Supply Code) Regulations. Key provisions include: Regulation 3.3.1: Presumes the correctness of a meter installed by the licensee unless proven defective through appropriate testing (typically by an accredited laboratory) Regulation 3.6.1: Permits revised or average billing only after a defect is established, and upon determination of the period during which the meter was defective These provisions make it clear that the power to issue supplementary bills is conditional and evidence-based, not discretionary. Factual Background The respondent, Jyotish Chandra Rice Mill, was an industrial consumer receiving high-tension electricity supply through a metering system involving a potential transformer (PT). In July 2019, WBSEDCL replaced the meter and PT during routine maintenance In November 2019, it conducted an inspection and alleged a polarity reversal in the PT, purportedly causing under-recording of consumption for approximately 140 days On this basis, WBSEDCL issued a supplementary demand of ₹55.8 lakh (later revised to ₹47.06 lakh), along with late payment surcharge The consumer challenged the demand before the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum and subsequently the Electricity Ombudsman. Although both forums noted the absence of conclusive evidence, the demand was effectively sustained, prompting WBSEDCL’s appeal before the High Court. Issues Before the Court The Division Bench considered the following key issues: Whether the potential transformer (PT) forms part of the “meter” for the purpose of regulatory presumption of correctness Whether WBSEDCL had proved the existence and duration of the alleged defect Whether the revised billing under Regulation 3.6.1 was legally sustainable Whether surcharge and interest could be levied on a demand lacking legal foundation Court’s Analysis PT as Integral to the Metering System The Court held that the potential transformer is an integral component of the metering apparatus. Consequently, it falls within the scope of Regulation 3.3.1, and the presumption of correctness applies to the entire metering system. This presumption could only be rebutted through credible technical evidence, which WBSEDCL failed to provide. Failure to Establish Defect and Its Duration A central finding of the Court was that WBSEDCL failed to discharge its evidentiary burden: No laboratory test report or technical certification was produced There was no clear determination of when the alleged defect began or ended The Court emphasised that revised billing requires precise identification of the defect period (terminus a quo and terminus ad quem). In the absence of such evidence, the demand was reduced to mere conjecture. Limits on Average Billing The Court clarified that Regulation 3.6.1 does not grant a blanket or discretionary power to raise average bills. Average billing is permissible only after a defect is conclusively established It cannot be used to retrospectively impose liability based on assumptions The impugned demand, therefore, lacked jurisdictional foundation. Perversity and Administrative Law Principles The Court found the Ombudsman’s order to be perverse, relying on principles laid down in State of Uttar Pradesh v. Johri Mal2, that a decision unsupported by evidence or based on irrelevant considerations is legally unsustainable. Further, invoking Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner3, the Court reiterated that: The validity of an administrative or quasi-judicial order must be judged solely on the reasons recorded therein Authorities cannot supplement deficiencies through subsequent justification Public Utility as Fiduciary In a significant doctrinal observation, the Court held that: A public utility discharges a fiduciary function toward consumers Its powers must be exercised fairly, reasonably, and in good faith The issuance of a speculative demand, coupled with surcharge and threat of disconnection, was characterised as administrative high-handedness. The Court further held that the Interest or late payment surcharge cannot be levied on an invalid demand and a void demand cannot be validated by the passage of time or accrual of penalties. Operative Directions The Court dismissed WBSEDCL’s appeal and issued the following directions: Quashed the supplementary demand of ₹47.06 lakh Directed waiver of late payment surcharge and interest Ordered adjustment of the amount deposited by the consumer against future bills Set aside disconnection notices issued on the basis of the impugned demand Disposed of connected applications without costs Conclusion The judgment in WBSEDCL v. Jyotish Chandra Rice Mill is a strong reaffirmation of consumer protection in the realm of public utilities. It underscores that: Meter correctness is presumed unless disproved through credible evidence Supplementary billing must rest on proven defects and defined timelines Administrative discretion cannot override statutory safeguards By characterising electricity distribution as a fiduciary function, the Court has elevated the standard of accountability expected from utilities. The ruling serves as a clear warning against arbitrary billing practices and strengthens the jurisprudence on fairness, reasonableness, and evidentiary discipline in regulatory governance. West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. & Ors. v. Jyotish Chandra Rice Mill & Ors., F.M.A. No. 179 of 2023 (Calcutta High Court, Feb. 2026). ↩︎ State of Uttar Pradesh v. Johri Mal (2004) 4 SCC 714 ↩︎ Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner (1978) 1 SCC 405 : AIR 1978 SC 851 ↩︎ Authored by Nivedita Bharadwaj, Partner  https://ksandk.com/people/nivedita-bhardwaj/

When a Prefix Is Not Enough: Deceptive Similarity and the Essential Feature Doctrine

By Himanshu Deora Introduction In a significant ruling dated February 10, 2026, the Delhi High Court revisited core principles of trademark law particularly prior use, deceptive similarity, and the essential feature doctrine, in the context of competing marks in the same commercial space. The dispute arose from the long-standing use of the mark “ARUN” by the petitioner in relation to sewing machines and parts, and the subsequent registration of the mark “AIC ARUN” by a competing entity operating in the same industry and geographical market. The case presented a classic conflict between prior user rights and subsequent registration, requiring the Court to assess whether the addition of a corporate prefix was sufficient to distinguish the marks.1 The Court ultimately held that the prefix “AIC” did not sufficiently distinguish the impugned mark from the dominant and distinctive element “ARUN,” and ordered partial rectification of the register. Historical Adoption and Statutory Rights in “ARUN” The petitioner established long-standing use of the mark “ARUN” dating back to 1962, including through predecessor entities and registered user arrangements. Over time, the mark was also formally registered under the Trade Marks Act, 1999, consolidating both statutory and common law rights. While other entities had adopted marks incorporating “ARUN,” the petitioner asserted that its use was prior, continuous, and commercially significant, thereby entitling it to protection against confusingly similar marks. Evidence of Goodwill and Acquired Distinctiveness The petitioner substantiated its claim of goodwill and distinctiveness through extensive evidence, including: Long-standing commercial use spanning several decades; Newspaper advertisements and cautionary notices issued to trade channels; Circulars warning against infringement; Prior enforcement actions against infringers; and Audited sales figures demonstrating sustained commercial growth. This evidence supported the conclusion that the mark “ARUN” had acquired secondary meaning within the relevant market. Even though “ARUN” is a common personal name, the Court reaffirmed that a descriptive or ordinary word can become distinctive through long, exclusive, and continuous use. Registration of “AIC ARUN” and Rectification Proceedings The respondent applied for registration of “AIC ARUN” in 2007, claiming use since 2004. The mark was advertised and subsequently registered in Class 7 for identical goods (sewing machines and parts). Notably, the Trade Marks Registry had cited the petitioner’s earlier “ARUN” marks in its examination report. However, the petitioner did not oppose the application under Section 21 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 at the advertisement stage. The petitioner later initiated rectification proceedings under Sections 47 and 57, seeking removal or modification of the impugned mark on the ground of deceptive similarity and prior rights. Defences Raised by the Respondent The respondent advanced two principal arguments: Statutory Validity of Registration: The respondent relied on the presumption of validity attached to a registered trademark. “ARUN” as Publici Juris: It was contended that “ARUN” had become common to the trade (publici juris), and therefore incapable of exclusive appropriation. The Court rejected the publici juris argument, noting the absence of evidence demonstrating widespread, uncontrolled use of “ARUN” in the relevant market. Mere existence of similar marks on the register does not establish that a term has become generic or common to the trade. Clarification: Publici Juris vs Genericness A key correction in legal reasoning is necessary here: Genericness refers to a term that denotes the product itself and is incapable of trademark protection. Publici juris refers to a term commonly used in the trade, which may weaken exclusivity but does not automatically negate protection. The Court correctly applied trademark principles (not copyright law) in holding that dilution of distinctiveness through widespread use must be proven with credible evidence failing which, prior rights prevail. Deceptive Similarity and the Essential Feature Doctrine The central issue before the Court was whether the addition of the prefix “AIC” sufficiently distinguished the mark “AIC ARUN” from “ARUN.” Applying the essential feature doctrine, the Court held: The dominant and distinctive component of the impugned mark was “ARUN”; The prefix “AIC,” being a corporate abbreviation, had minimal distinctiveness; The visual and phonetic identity of “ARUN” remained unchanged. The Court relied on the principle of the average consumer with imperfect recollection, and identified the following factors supporting a likelihood of confusion: Phonetic identity of the dominant element (“ARUN”); Visual prominence of “ARUN” within the composite mark; Identity of goods (sewing machines and parts); Overlapping trade channels and consumer base; Geographic proximity of the parties. In these circumstances, the Court held that the impugned mark was deceptively similar, and the prefix was insufficient to avoid confusion. Failure to Oppose vs Right to Rectification The respondent argued that the petitioner’s failure to oppose the mark under Section 21 barred subsequent rectification under Sections 47 and 57. The Court rejected this contention and clarified that: Opposition and rectification are distinct remedies; Failure to oppose does not create a permanent bar to rectification; Rectification serves the broader purpose of maintaining the purity of the register. This position is consistent with established trademark jurisprudence. Consideration of Precedents The Court distinguished authorities where marks were held to be common to the trade due to lack of evidence in the present case. It relied on established principles from cases such as: Himalaya Drug Co. v. SBL Ltd. (2012)2 Greaves Cotton Ltd. (2011) These decisions reiterate that mere addition of prefixes or suffixes to the dominant feature of a mark does not eliminate deceptive similarity. Exercise of Powers under Section 57 Instead of cancelling the respondent’s mark in its entirety, the Court exercised its powers under Section 57 to partially rectify the register by directing deletion of the word “ARUN” from “AIC ARUN.” This nuanced approach: Preserved the respondent’s ability to continue business under “AIC”; Prevented misappropriation of the petitioner’s goodwill; Balanced competing commercial interests. The Registrar was directed to implement the modification within six weeks. Key Legal Principles Reinforced This decision reaffirms several important principles: Prior use prevails over subsequent registration, particularly where goodwill is established; Even common or personal names can acquire distinctiveness through secondary meaning; The essential feature doctrine remains central to assessing deceptive similarity; Addition of corporate prefixes or suffixes does not negate infringement; Failure to oppose does not extinguish the right to seek rectification; Section 57 empowers courts to order partial rectification to balance equities. Conclusion The Delhi High Court’s decision underscores that trademark protection is rooted in commercial reality, not merely formal registration. While registration confers statutory rights, it does not override the superior rights of a prior user with established goodwill. By ordering partial rectification, the Court adopted a pragmatic and equitable approach, ensuring both protection of established rights and continuity of legitimate business operations. The ruling serves as a clear reminder: minor additions such as corporate prefixes cannot legitimise appropriation of the essential feature of an established mark, particularly where such use is likely to cause confusion or dilute accrued goodwill. (Case No. C.O.(Comm.IPD-TM) 651/2022, Judgement No. 2026:DHC:1038), ↩︎ The Himalaya Drug Co. v. SBL Ltd., (2013) 53 PTC 1 (Del). ↩︎ Authored by Himanshu Deora, Partner  https://ksandk.com/people/himanshu-deora/ https://ksandk.com/

INDIA’S ONLINE GAMING RESET: DECODING PROGA AND THE 2026 RULES

INTRODUCTION April 22, 2026 marks the day India's online gaming sector stepped out of the grey zone and into a comprehensive, centralised regulatory framework. On this date, the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (“MeitY”) issued a series of Gazette notifications[1] that together operationalise the Promotion and Regulation of Online Gaming Act, 2025[2] (“PROGA” or the “Act”) and the Promotion and Regulation of Online Gaming Rules, 2026[3] (“Rules”). Both come into force on May 1, 2026. Taken together, these notifications do more than bring a statute into effect- they establish, for the first time, a unified and centralised regulatory framework governing online gaming in India. For online gaming service providers (“OGSPs”), investors, boards, and financial intermediaries, this is not an incremental shift - it is a structural reset. In a single regulatory move, the government: (i) notified May 1st, 2026 as the commencement date; (ii) constituted the Online Gaming Authority of India (“OGAI”); (iii) empowered cyber cell officers to investigate offences; and (iv) notified the Rules that give operational effect to PROGA. STATE SPECIFIC LAWS VIS-À-VIS PROGA Until PROGA, India had no unified national framework for online gaming. Legislative power over “betting and gambling” sat with the states under the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution, producing a patchwork of colonial-era statutes and inconsistent judicial interpretation. The foundational Public Gambling Act, 1867 - a law regulating physical gaming houses - was adopted by most states, leaving online gaming in a legal grey zone navigated through the skill-chance distinction: platforms offering rummy, fantasy sports, and poker operated under judicial recognition of their skill-game character, though that position was never uniformly settled. States moved independently: Nagaland licensed online skill games; Sikkim licensed casino and skill games within its territory; Tamil Nadu banned real-money games of chance online[4]; Telangana and Andhra Pradesh imposed blanket prohibitions on all staked games including skill games; and Haryana extended gambling prohibitions expressly to online mediums in 2025. MeitY's 2023 attempt at a central framework through IT Rules amendments - proposing self-regulatory bodies to verify real-money games - never became operational, as no self-regulatory body was ever registered.[5] It is pertinent to note that multiple petitions challenging the constitutional validity of PROGA have been filed across various High Courts, which have since been consolidated before the Supreme Court, and the final judgment on the issue remains awaited. WHAT THE FRAMEWORK ACTUALLY DOES PROGA draws a hard-three-way line. E-sports - competitive, multiplayer, skill-based games recognised under the National Sports Governance Act, 2025 (“NSGA”) - are permitted and subject to mandatory registration. Prize money for performance is expressly allowed. Spectator betting in connection with an e-sport, however, is not - and a fantasy league or betting product built around an e-sport event is almost certainly an online money game under the Act's definition. Online Social Games - recreational or educational games that charge only a subscription or one-time access fee, with no expectation of monetary return - are generally permitted. Registration is required only if the Central Government specifically notifies a category, or if the OGAI determines during a classification review that a particular game requires it. Online Money Games - any game, skill-based or not, where a player pays fees or deposits money in expectation of monetary or equivalent return - are flatly prohibited. There is no licence, no tolerance window, no skill-based exception. The prohibition is absolute, and it applies from May 1st, 2026. PROGA deems offering, advertising, and facilitating payments for online money games cognisable and non-bailable criminal offences. Imprisonment extends to three years and fines to INR 1 crore for offering and facilitating payment flows, and two years and INR 50 lakh for advertising. Repeat offenders face mandatory minimum sentences. THE CLASSIFICATION TRAP The characterisation of a game as a “social game” or an “online money game” is not left up to the discretion of the OGSP. Per the Rules, this determination is to be undertaken by the OGAI, a newly constituted quasi-judicial body operating as a digital-first regulatory office. The OGAI is mandated to apply a structured five-factor test[6], thereby centralising classification authority and removing any scope for unilateral self-classification by OGSPs. The OGAI will examine: whether fees or deposits are involved at any stage; whether users have a reasonable expectation of monetary return; how fees are structured and used; the revenue model; and - most critically - whether rewards, in-game assets or benefits can be transferred, redeemed, monetised or used outside the game environment. That last factor is the one most likely to catch operators by surprise. A game with no direct cash prize, but whose in-game tokens trade freely on a secondary market at real-world prices, is potentially a money game under this test. Virtual currencies, NFT-based rewards, play-to-earn mechanics, and off-platform token economies are all within scope under the Act's definition of “other stakes”[7] which captures anything real or virtual, purchased directly or indirectly, in relation to an online game. The OGAI can initiate a determination suo motu, and the Rules make it clear that a favourable determination for one OGSP’s offering shall not afford similar determination to any other OGSP offering a substantially similar product.[8] Each OGSP, for each game, stands alone before the OGAI. For companies with large, derivative product portfolios, this is a compliance burden of significant scale. Moreover, any determination by the OGAI is not permanent or final and is subject to OGPS’ continued sustenance of the same model.[9] WHAT DISAPPEARED-AND WHAT THAT SIGNALS The Draft Rules[10] provided for a Grievance Appellate Committee - a buffer layer between dissatisfied users and the OGAI which has been done away with the by the Rules. Under the Rules, an end user aggrieved by an OGSP’s grievance outcome may directly approach the OGAI within thirty days.[11] Every unresolved user complaint is now one step away from a formal regulatory proceeding. Companies that treat grievance redressal as a customer service function rather than a compliance function are mispricing this risk significantly. Additionally, the Draft Rules also proposed a positive national registry of permitted online money games, this has been recalibrated in the Rules to a prohibition-based construct - a public register identifying games classified as online money games.[12] The transition from an “allow-list” to a “deny-list” model is directionally significant: it reflects a regulatory posture that is enforcement-led, with a clear bias towards risk containment over market enablement. WHAT THIS MEANS IN PRACTICE: A STAKEHOLDER MAP If you operate an online gaming platform/OGSP: Your immediate priority is a Rule 9 audit of every product in your portfolio - an operational review of every monetisation mechanic, reward structure, and secondary-market pathway for in-game assets. Products that have not been reviewed against the five-factor test carry unquantified criminal exposure from May 1st, 2026. The country of origin of the OGSP is an explicit factor under the Rules that the government may use to trigger mandatory registration.[13] Foreign-headquartered operators should assume a higher registration probability and plan accordingly. If you are an e-sports operator, note that OGAI registration is not your first step - NSGA recognition is. The OGAI's 90-day registration clock starts only after you have NSGA recognition and have submitted a complete application. Build both timelines into your product launch plan. If you are a bank, financial institution, or payment service provider: PROGA repositions you from a passive payment processor to an active compliance gatekeeper, and the personal criminal liability that comes with that repositioning is real. Rules require you to verify a game's determination order or Certificate of Registration before processing any transaction for a permitted game.[14] Furthermore, you are required to block transactions for prohibited games “without delay” upon receiving direction  from the OGAI.[15] There is no internal review period, no escalation pause, and no grace window built into either obligation. The immediate compliance problem is structural: the verification obligation under Rule 19(1) is live from May 1st, 2026, but the OGAI has not yet issued the directions specifying how verification is to be done. Once the Rule 26 prohibition list goes live, a bank that continues processing transactions for a game on that list - even without receiving a specific OGAI direction - will struggle to maintain a due diligence defence. The criminal exposure under PROGA is worth noting.[16] The Head of Payments, the Chief Compliance Officer, and any senior executive in charge of the relevant part of the business at the time of an offence are personally liable - subject only to a defence of no knowledge or documented due diligence. Check whether your D&O insurance covers this exposure. Most criminal liability exclusions will apply. If you are an investor or board member: There is no nuanced regulatory risk in this sector anymore. A product is either permitted or prohibited. Investment due diligence must include a Rule 9 analysis of every product in the target's portfolio, an assessment of re-determination risk in the product roadmap, and a review of the target's financial intermediary arrangements.[17] PROGA makes this a board-level issue. Every person in charge of and responsible for the relevant part of the business is personally liable, subject to a defence of documented due diligence and lack of knowledge.[18] Independent directors and non-executive directors not involved in actual decision-making are expressly excluded from this exposure - but executive directors and C-suite managers with oversight of gaming product lines are not. Board minutes and compliance briefings from before May 1 will matter enormously if liability is contested after it. If you are an advertiser, celebrity, or influencer: PROGA prohibits any advertisement that directly or indirectly promotes or induces participation in an online money game.[19] The Act's definition of advertisement cross-refers to the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 - which captures audio, visual, digital, and social media content. A lifestyle post featuring a gaming app can constitute an indirect promotion. Ongoing ambassador contracts and social media arrangements tied to gaming products need immediate legal review for termination rights and continuing obligations. This publication is for general informational purposes only and does not constitutes legal advice. Authors: Tanishq Acharya, Senior Associate - https://ksandk.com/people/tanishq-acharya/  Srishti Rathore, Associate - https://ksandk.com/people/srishti-rathore/  [1]https://www.meity.gov.in/documents/act-and-policies/promotion-and-regulation-of-online-gaming-act-2025-and-its-corrigenda-kTMxQjMtQWa?pageTitle=Promotion-and-Regulation-of-Online-Gaming-Act,-2025-and-its-Corrigenda [2] https://www.meity.gov.in/static/uploads/2025/10/8a7f103cefc68ed8aaa2ebc9a2ed7c13.pdf [3] https://www.meity.gov.in/static/uploads/2026/04/7e0b02d37fd07f81fa48578a9996aa85.pdf [4] The Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Online Gambling and Regulation of Online Games Act, 2022 [5] The Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Amendment Rules, 2023 proposed a co-regulatory verification regime through MeitY-recognised self-regulatory bodies. No such body was registered before PROGA superseded this framework. [6] Rule 9 of the Rules. [7] Section 2(j) of the PROGA. [8] Rule 10(2) of the Rules. [9] Rule 11 of the Rules. [10] https://www.meity.gov.in/static/uploads/2025/10/18bae7782749f36ebb062fdb0b2607ea.pdf [11] Rule 20 of the Rules. [12] Rule 26 of the Rules. [13] Rule 12(1)(a)(v) of the Rules. [14] Rule 19(1) of the Rules. [15] Rule 19(2) of the Rules [16] Section 5, 9 and 11 of PROGA. [17] Rule 19 of the Rules. [18] Section 11 of PROGA. [19] Section 6 of PROGA.

INDIA’S ONLINE GAMING RESET: DECODING PROGA AND THE 2026 RULES

INTRODUCTION April 22, 2026 marks the day India's online gaming sector stepped out of the grey zone and into a comprehensive, centralised regulatory framework. On this date, the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (“MeitY”) issued a series of Gazette notifications[1] that together operationalise the Promotion and Regulation of Online Gaming Act, 2025[2] (“PROGA” or the “Act”) and the Promotion and Regulation of Online Gaming Rules, 2026[3] (“Rules”). Both come into force on May 1, 2026. Taken together, these notifications do more than bring a statute into effect- they establish, for the first time, a unified and centralised regulatory framework governing online gaming in India. For online gaming service providers (“OGSPs”), investors, boards, and financial intermediaries, this is not an incremental shift - it is a structural reset. In a single regulatory move, the government: (i) notified May 1st, 2026 as the commencement date; (ii) constituted the Online Gaming Authority of India (“OGAI”); (iii) empowered cyber cell officers to investigate offences; and (iv) notified the Rules that give operational effect to PROGA. STATE SPECIFIC LAWS VIS-À-VIS PROGA Until PROGA, India had no unified national framework for online gaming. Legislative power over “betting and gambling” sat with the states under the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution, producing a patchwork of colonial-era statutes and inconsistent judicial interpretation. The foundational Public Gambling Act, 1867 - a law regulating physical gaming houses - was adopted by most states, leaving online gaming in a legal grey zone navigated through the skill-chance distinction: platforms offering rummy, fantasy sports, and poker operated under judicial recognition of their skill-game character, though that position was never uniformly settled. States moved independently: Nagaland licensed online skill games; Sikkim licensed casino and skill games within its territory; Tamil Nadu banned real-money games of chance online[4]; Telangana and Andhra Pradesh imposed blanket prohibitions on all staked games including skill games; and Haryana extended gambling prohibitions expressly to online mediums in 2025. MeitY's 2023 attempt at a central framework through IT Rules amendments - proposing self-regulatory bodies to verify real-money games - never became operational, as no self-regulatory body was ever registered.[5] It is pertinent to note that multiple petitions challenging the constitutional validity of PROGA have been filed across various High Courts, which have since been consolidated before the Supreme Court, and the final judgment on the issue remains awaited. WHAT THE FRAMEWORK ACTUALLY DOES PROGA draws a hard-three-way line. E-sports - competitive, multiplayer, skill-based games recognised under the National Sports Governance Act, 2025 (“NSGA”) - are permitted and subject to mandatory registration. Prize money for performance is expressly allowed. Spectator betting in connection with an e-sport, however, is not - and a fantasy league or betting product built around an e-sport event is almost certainly an online money game under the Act's definition. Online Social Games - recreational or educational games that charge only a subscription or one-time access fee, with no expectation of monetary return - are generally permitted. Registration is required only if the Central Government specifically notifies a category, or if the OGAI determines during a classification review that a particular game requires it. Online Money Games - any game, skill-based or not, where a player pays fees or deposits money in expectation of monetary or equivalent return - are flatly prohibited. There is no licence, no tolerance window, no skill-based exception. The prohibition is absolute, and it applies from May 1st, 2026. PROGA deems offering, advertising, and facilitating payments for online money games cognisable and non-bailable criminal offences. Imprisonment extends to three years and fines to INR 1 crore for offering and facilitating payment flows, and two years and INR 50 lakh for advertising. Repeat offenders face mandatory minimum sentences. THE CLASSIFICATION TRAP The characterisation of a game as a “social game” or an “online money game” is not left up to the discretion of the OGSP. Per the Rules, this determination is to be undertaken by the OGAI, a newly constituted quasi-judicial body operating as a digital-first regulatory office. The OGAI is mandated to apply a structured five-factor test[6], thereby centralising classification authority and removing any scope for unilateral self-classification by OGSPs. The OGAI will examine: whether fees or deposits are involved at any stage; whether users have a reasonable expectation of monetary return; how fees are structured and used; the revenue model; and - most critically - whether rewards, in-game assets or benefits can be transferred, redeemed, monetised or used outside the game environment. That last factor is the one most likely to catch operators by surprise. A game with no direct cash prize, but whose in-game tokens trade freely on a secondary market at real-world prices, is potentially a money game under this test. Virtual currencies, NFT-based rewards, play-to-earn mechanics, and off-platform token economies are all within scope under the Act's definition of “other stakes”[7] which captures anything real or virtual, purchased directly or indirectly, in relation to an online game. The OGAI can initiate a determination suo motu, and the Rules make it clear that a favourable determination for one OGSP’s offering shall not afford similar determination to any other OGSP offering a substantially similar product.[8] Each OGSP, for each game, stands alone before the OGAI. For companies with large, derivative product portfolios, this is a compliance burden of significant scale. Moreover, any determination by the OGAI is not permanent or final and is subject to OGPS’ continued sustenance of the same model.[9] WHAT DISAPPEARED-AND WHAT THAT SIGNALS The Draft Rules[10] provided for a Grievance Appellate Committee - a buffer layer between dissatisfied users and the OGAI which has been done away with the by the Rules. Under the Rules, an end user aggrieved by an OGSP’s grievance outcome may directly approach the OGAI within thirty days.[11] Every unresolved user complaint is now one step away from a formal regulatory proceeding. Companies that treat grievance redressal as a customer service function rather than a compliance function are mispricing this risk significantly. Additionally, the Draft Rules also proposed a positive national registry of permitted online money games, this has been recalibrated in the Rules to a prohibition-based construct - a public register identifying games classified as online money games.[12] The transition from an “allow-list” to a “deny-list” model is directionally significant: it reflects a regulatory posture that is enforcement-led, with a clear bias towards risk containment over market enablement. WHAT THIS MEANS IN PRACTICE: A STAKEHOLDER MAP If you operate an online gaming platform/OGSP: Your immediate priority is a Rule 9 audit of every product in your portfolio - an operational review of every monetisation mechanic, reward structure, and secondary-market pathway for in-game assets. Products that have not been reviewed against the five-factor test carry unquantified criminal exposure from May 1st, 2026. The country of origin of the OGSP is an explicit factor under the Rules that the government may use to trigger mandatory registration.[13] Foreign-headquartered operators should assume a higher registration probability and plan accordingly. If you are an e-sports operator, note that OGAI registration is not your first step - NSGA recognition is. The OGAI's 90-day registration clock starts only after you have NSGA recognition and have submitted a complete application. Build both timelines into your product launch plan. If you are a bank, financial institution, or payment service provider: PROGA repositions you from a passive payment processor to an active compliance gatekeeper, and the personal criminal liability that comes with that repositioning is real. Rules require you to verify a game's determination order or Certificate of Registration before processing any transaction for a permitted game.[14] Furthermore, you are required to block transactions for prohibited games “without delay” upon receiving direction  from the OGAI.[15] There is no internal review period, no escalation pause, and no grace window built into either obligation. The immediate compliance problem is structural: the verification obligation under Rule 19(1) is live from May 1st, 2026, but the OGAI has not yet issued the directions specifying how verification is to be done. Once the Rule 26 prohibition list goes live, a bank that continues processing transactions for a game on that list - even without receiving a specific OGAI direction - will struggle to maintain a due diligence defence. The criminal exposure under PROGA is worth noting.[16] The Head of Payments, the Chief Compliance Officer, and any senior executive in charge of the relevant part of the business at the time of an offence are personally liable - subject only to a defence of no knowledge or documented due diligence. Check whether your D&O insurance covers this exposure. Most criminal liability exclusions will apply. If you are an investor or board member: There is no nuanced regulatory risk in this sector anymore. A product is either permitted or prohibited. Investment due diligence must include a Rule 9 analysis of every product in the target's portfolio, an assessment of re-determination risk in the product roadmap, and a review of the target's financial intermediary arrangements.[17] PROGA makes this a board-level issue. Every person in charge of and responsible for the relevant part of the business is personally liable, subject to a defence of documented due diligence and lack of knowledge.[18] Independent directors and non-executive directors not involved in actual decision-making are expressly excluded from this exposure - but executive directors and C-suite managers with oversight of gaming product lines are not. Board minutes and compliance briefings from before May 1 will matter enormously if liability is contested after it. If you are an advertiser, celebrity, or influencer: PROGA prohibits any advertisement that directly or indirectly promotes or induces participation in an online money game.[19] The Act's definition of advertisement cross-refers to the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 - which captures audio, visual, digital, and social media content. A lifestyle post featuring a gaming app can constitute an indirect promotion. Ongoing ambassador contracts and social media arrangements tied to gaming products need immediate legal review for termination rights and continuing obligations. This publication is for general informational purposes only and does not constitutes legal advice.     [1]https://www.meity.gov.in/documents/act-and-policies/promotion-and-regulation-of-online-gaming-act-2025-and-its-corrigenda-kTMxQjMtQWa?pageTitle=Promotion-and-Regulation-of-Online-Gaming-Act,-2025-and-its-Corrigenda [2] https://www.meity.gov.in/static/uploads/2025/10/8a7f103cefc68ed8aaa2ebc9a2ed7c13.pdf [3] https://www.meity.gov.in/static/uploads/2026/04/7e0b02d37fd07f81fa48578a9996aa85.pdf [4] The Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Online Gambling and Regulation of Online Games Act, 2022 [5] The Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Amendment Rules, 2023 proposed a co-regulatory verification regime through MeitY-recognised self-regulatory bodies. No such body was registered before PROGA superseded this framework. [6] Rule 9 of the Rules. [7] Section 2(j) of the PROGA. [8] Rule 10(2) of the Rules. [9] Rule 11 of the Rules. [10] https://www.meity.gov.in/static/uploads/2025/10/18bae7782749f36ebb062fdb0b2607ea.pdf [11] Rule 20 of the Rules. [12] Rule 26 of the Rules. [13] Rule 12(1)(a)(v) of the Rules. [14] Rule 19(1) of the Rules. [15] Rule 19(2) of the Rules [16] Section 5, 9 and 11 of PROGA. [17] Rule 19 of the Rules. [18] Section 11 of PROGA. [19] Section 6 of PROGA.

The Four Labour Codes and Their Rules: A Complete Guide for Karnataka's Manufacturing Sector

Incorporating all four sets of Central Rules notified on 8 May 2026, the Model Standing Orders 2026, and Karnataka State Rules.   Introduction On 21 November 2025, the Ministry of Labour and Employment notified India's four Labour Codes, the Code on Wages, 2019 (Wage Code); the Industrial Relations Code, 2020 (IR Code); the Code on Social Security, 2020 (SS Code); and the Occupational Safety, Health and Working Conditions Code, 2020 (OSH Code), bringing one of the most sweeping overhauls of Indian employment regulation since Independence into force. These four Codes consolidate 29 Central labour laws into a unified framework, repealing foundational statutes such as the Factories Act 1948, the Industrial Disputes Act 1947, the Payment of Wages Act 1936, the Minimum Wages Act 1948, the EPF and MP Act 1952, the ESI Act 1948, the Payment of Gratuity Act 1972, the Contract Labour Act 1970, and the Trade Unions Act 1926, among others. On 8 May 2026, the Central Government completed a further landmark step by notifying the final Central Rules under all four Labour Codes this development operationalises nearly all provisions of the new labour framework that fall within the central government’s administrative jurisdiction. The Central Rules are accompanied by the Model Standing Orders 2026 for the mining, manufacturing and services sectors. This publication reflects these latest developments in full. For Karnataka's manufacturing sector, encompassing everything from large automotive and aerospace plants to mid-sized garment, pharmaceutical, and precision engineering units across the state, the implications are both immediate and structural. This article explains what the four Codes and their Rules mean in practice, and what manufacturers must do now. Legislative and Rules Status as of 9 May 2026 The Central Government has notified Rules under all four Labour Codes, substantially operationalising the central labour law framework, while state level implementation continues to evolve. Karnataka subsequently published draft rules in January 2026 under the Code on Social Security, 2020 and the Occupational Safety, Health and Working Conditions Code, 2020 to align the State framework with the evolving Labour Codes regime. Following the notification of the Central Rules on 8 May 2026, Karnataka’s final rules under the Codes are still awaited. Current Status Code on Wages, 2019 Central Rules notified on 8 May 2026. Karnataka draft Rules were issued in January 2026; revised Rules are awaited. Industrial Relations Code, 2020 Central Rules and Model Standing Orders notified on 8 May 2026. Karnataka Rules are awaited. Code on Social Security, 2020 Central Rules notified on 8 May 2026. Karnataka Rules are awaited. OSH Code, 2020 Central Rules notified on 8 May 2026. Karnataka draft Rules were issued in January 2026; final Rules are awaited.   Note for Karnataka Manufacturers Since labour falls on the Concurrent List of the Constitution, both Central and State rules apply and operate concurrently. For establishments where the State Government is the 'appropriate government' (which includes most private manufacturing units in Karnataka), State rules govern procedural matters. The Central Rules provide the substantive framework and serve as the baseline reference for States finalising their own rules. Karnataka manufacturers should continue monitor the Karnataka Labour Commissioner's Karmika Spandana portal for final notifications under the OSH Code and SS Code. 1. The Code on Wages, 2019 Overview The Wage Code consolidates four earlier statutes, the Minimum Wages Act 1948, the Payment of Wages Act 1936, the Payment of Bonus Act 1965, and the Equal Remuneration Act 1976. It establishes a uniform definition of wages applicable across all four Labour Codes, introduces universal minimum wage coverage, and introduces a statutory cap on excluded allowances under the definition of wages that has immediate payroll implications for manufacturers. Key Provisions The 50% Wage Rule Section 2(y) of the Wage Code defines 'wages' to include basic pay, dearness allowance, and retaining allowance. If other allowances such as, HRA, conveyance, special allowances, food coupons, mobile recharge, and similar items together exceed 50% of total remuneration, the excess is deemed wages. The practical effect is that excluded components of remuneration cannot exceed 50% of total remuneration for the purpose of wage computation and thus the wage base for computation of statutory benefits would be at a minimum of 50% of the entire remuneration.  This directly increases the base on which PF, ESI, gratuity, bonus, and overtime are calculated, materially raising the statutory employment cost for most manufacturers operating legacy salary structures. The March 2026 Ministry FAQs explained that in-kind benefits under terms of employment such as food coupons, ration items, and mobile recharges where such benefits are expressed or implied may constitute ‘remuneration in kind’ for the purpose of 50% calculation under the definition of wages, but only up to 15% of total wages is counted toward the wages figure, with any excess treated as allowances. Annual performance-linked payments that are not part of the regular remuneration structure are excluded from the wage definition under the final Rules. Universal Minimum Wage The Wage Code removes the old concept of 'scheduled employments,' under which minimum wage protection applied only to notified categories of work. Every worker in every sector is now covered. Karnataka structures minimum wages by skill category (unskilled, semi-skilled, skilled, and highly skilled) and geographic zone (Zone I covering specified urban areas including BBMP limits, Zone II covering other notified urban areas, Zone III covering district headquarters not falling within Zones I and II, and Zone IV covering all remaining areas of the State). Variable Dearness Allowance (“VDA”) is revised twice yearly based on the Consumer Price Index for Industrial Workers, with Karnataka's most recent revision effective from 1 April 2026. Equal Pay and Bonus The Wage Code mandates equal remuneration for equal work irrespective of gender, carrying the principle of the erstwhile Equal Remuneration Act 1976 forward with statutory force. The Wage Code also consolidates the bonus framework previously governed by the Payment of Bonus Act 1965: workers who complete at least 30 days of work in an accounting year remain eligible for bonus, further the rules clarify that where contract labour is engaged through a contractor, the principal employer bears responsibility contractor default, consistent with contract labour compliance principles. The Code on Wages (Central) Rules, 2026 - Notified 8 May 2026 The Wage Code Central Rules, notified on 8 May 2026, operationalise the Code's substantive provisions. Key features for manufacturers are: Minimum wages and VDA: Fixation and revision framework for minimum wages is prescribed, with VDA to be revised twice a year based on the Consumer Price Index for Industrial Workers. Overtime Statutory cap: The Rules retain the statutory framework of an 8-hour working day and a 48-hour working week. A worker cannot be required or permitted to work overtime in excess of 144 hours in any quarter. In addition, the Rules prescribe mandatory rest intervals and regulate the “spread-over” of working hours, i.e., the total period between the commencement and cessation of work, inclusive of rest intervals. Overtime calculation: Where workers perform overtime beyond prescribed working hour limits under applicable law, overtime wages are payable at twice the ordinary rate of wages, payable at the end of each wage period. For rounding purposes, 15–30 minutes of overtime counts as 30 minutes; more than 30 minutes counts as a full hour. Daily wage computation: For monthly-paid workers, the daily wage is calculated as 1/26th of the monthly wage, a formula relevant for overtime, leave encashment, and gratuity purposes. Digital compliance: Employers may maintain wage registers, wage slips, overtime records, attendance registers, and notices in electronic formats. Records must be preserved for five years. Principal employer bonus liability: The Rules recognises the liability of the principal employer to ensure minimum statutory bonus is paid to contract workers where a contractor defaults. Standardised formats: Formats for wage registers, wage slips, salary registers, attendance registers, and employee registers have been standardised and prescribed. Nomination framework: A formal nomination framework for employees with respect to wage-linked entitlements has been introduced.   Karnataka Manufacturers' Action Point - Wage Code Karnataka issued draft Wage Rules in January 2026. Conduct an immediate payroll audit to ensure wages constitute at least 50% of total remuneration for all categories of workers. Restructure CTC bands to comply, and recompute PF, ESI, gratuity, and bonus bases accordingly. Update wage registers and wage slip to the prescribed digital formats. Note that certain in-kind benefits capable of monetary valuation may need to be considered while applying the 50% wage threshold. 2. The Industrial Relations Code, 2020 Overview The IR Code consolidates three foundational statutes: the Trade Unions Act 1926, the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act 1946, and the Industrial Disputes Act 1947. It introduces meaningful changes to standing orders, dispute resolution, collective bargaining, and retrenchment thresholds and is accompanied by the newly notified Model Standing Orders 2026 specifically covering the manufacturing sector. Key Provisions Standing Orders - Raised Threshold and Model Orders Under the old framework, industrial establishments employing 100 or more workers were required to frame and certify standing orders. The IR Code raises this threshold to 300 workers, giving small and mid-sized manufacturing units the flexibility to govern service conditions through employment contracts, HR policies and internal service rules rather than formally certified standing orders. A Karnataka-specific note: IT and ITES establishments in the state have historically held a conditional exemption from the standing orders requirement, most recently extended until June 2029. The continued operation of existing Karnataka IT/ITES exemptions may depend on transitional notifications and fresh exemptions issued under the IR Code framework. Retrenchment, Layoff and Closure The threshold for prior government approval before retrenchment, layoff, or closure rises from 100 to 300 workers. Establishments below this threshold may restructure their workforce without government permission, subject to prescribed notice periods and compensation obligations. For each worker retrenched, the employer is required to contribute an amount equivalent to 15 days of last-drawn wages to the Worker Re-Skilling Fund within 45 days of retrenchment, subject to the fund and operational mechanism becoming effective upon implementation by the appropriate Government. Fixed-Term Employment The IR Code formally recognises fixed-term employment (FTE) as a distinct engagement category. Fixed-term employees are entitled to statutory benefits, including PF, ESI, and gratuity proportionate to the duration of their fixed-term engagement, without the conventional five-year qualifying requirement, on a par with permanent workers. Contracts expiring by their terms do not attract retrenchment compensation obligations, though early termination by the employer may, depending on the facts attract retrenchment-related obligations. Trade Union Recognition A union commanding at least 51% membership in an establishment may be designated the sole Negotiating Union with collective bargaining rights. Where no union reaches this threshold, a Negotiating Council comprising representatives of all unions with at least 20% membership is constituted. This rationalises the historically fragmented multi-union landscape in Karnataka's larger manufacturing centres. Dispute Resolution The IR Code establishes time-bound adjudication mechanisms. Workers may approach the Industrial Tribunal directly after 45 days of failed conciliation. Strikes and lockouts require 14 days advance notice. Critically, one of the other major changes brought about to the definition of ‘strike’ is the inclusion of concerted casual leave by 50% or more workers employed in an industry. The Industrial Relations (Central) Rules, 2026 and Model Standing Orders 2026 - Notified 8 May 2026 The IR Code Central Rules, notified on 8 May 2026, address the procedural framework for key provisions. The accompanying Model Standing Orders 2026, separately notified for the manufacturing sector, are particularly significant such as: Grievance Redressal Committees (GRC): Mandatory for establishments with 20 or more workers. GRC is a mechanism for resolving individual employee grievances at the workplace level. Committees must have equal employer and worker representation, not exceeding 10 members in total, and must include adequate representation of women workers. Works committees: works committee are mandatory for every industrial establishment employing 100 or more workers, in order to promote day to day cooperation between employers and workers. Works Committee may consist of up to 20 members, with worker representatives not less than employer representatives, ensuring balanced participation in matters of collective workplace interest. Manufacturing Sector: The Model Standing Orders 2026 for the manufacturing sector classify workers into categories including permanent, temporary, apprentice, probationer, badli, fixed-term, and casual workers. They prescribe rules on attendance, leave, shift work, misconduct, and disciplinary proceedings. Compared to the 1946 framework, recognise the Internal Complaints Committees for sexual harassment related complaints and grievance redressal committees under the IR Code. Digital worker records: The new standing orders require workers' records to include mobile number, email address, ESI number, gratuity nominee, and training history, reflecting a shift to digitised employment records. Lay-off and retrenchment applications: The Rules delegate authority to Joint Secretary-level officers to examine applications for lay-off, retrenchment, and closure in establishments where the Central Government is the appropriate government. Union recognition and election procedures: Digital processes are prescribed for conciliation proceedings, notices, and election procedures for worker representatives. Settlement agreements: Provisions for the form and binding nature of collective agreements, effective for up to three years, are set out in the Rules.   Karnataka Manufacturers' Action Point - IR Code Central IR Code Rules are now in force. Establishments with 300 or more workers must frame standing orders aligned with the Model Standing Orders 2026 for the manufacturing sector within the prescribed six-month window. Establishments with over 20 workers must constitute Grievance Redressal Committees immediately. Review and formalise trade union recognition strategy with IR Code requirements. 3. The Code on Social Security, 2020 Overview The SS Code consolidates nine statutes, most notably the EPF and Miscellaneous Provisions Act 1952, the ESI Act 1948, the Payment of Gratuity Act 1972, and the Maternity Benefit Act 1961. It is the Code with the broadest structural ambition, extending social security coverage to gig and platform workers, unorganised sector employees, inter-state migrants, and other categories previously excluded from the formal social security net. For manufacturers, its most immediate implications flow from the redefined wage definition and revised gratuity framework for fixed term employees. Key Provisions Wage Redefinition - Cascading Impact on PF, ESI, and Gratuity The SS Code adopts the same definition of 'wages' as the Wage Code. This has cascading implications for statutory contributions. The ESIC clarified through circulars in December 2025 that the new wage definition must be applied in computing ESI contributions, and that employees previously excluded from ESI coverage due salary structuring practices may now fall within the scheme. Employers should reassess their entire workforce database for contribution recalculation. Gratuity - Extended to Fixed-Term Workers and New Categories Fixed-term employees are entitled to gratuity proportionate to the period of service rendered, even where they do not complete the conventional five-year qualifying period applicable to regular employees. The SS Code also recognises applicability of gratuity provisions to piece-rate workers, seasonal workers, and disabled workers. The current ceiling of ₹20 lakhs continues to apply until modified by the Central Government. Under the SS Code, employers (other than government-controlled establishments) are required to obtain compulsory gratuity insurance, the date for this obligation is yet to be notified by the appropriate government, but manufacturers should begin identifying and engaging approved insurers now. Maternity Benefits The SS Code carries forward the protections of the Maternity Benefit Act 1961. Women employees who have worked for at least 80 days in the previous 12 months immediately preceding the expected date of delivery are entitled to maternity benefits including paid leave, creche access, and nursing breaks. Principal Employer Liability for Contract Labour The SS Code retains principal employer liability. Where a contractor fails to make PF or ESI contributions for its contract workers, the principal employer is jointly and severally liable. In the event of a business transfer, the transferee employer is also jointly liable with the transferor for unpaid social security dues, a provision highly relevant for manufacturers engaged in mergers, acquisitions, or plant transfers. Gig and Platform Workers For the first time, gig and platform workers have formal legal recognition under the SS Code. Aggregators must contribute 1–2% of their annual turnover (capped at 5% of total payments to gig workers) toward a dedicated Social Security Fund for such workers. This provision is primarily relevant to manufacturers engaging technology-platform-based logistics or delivery services, and to establishments that classify portions of their workforce through digital platforms. The Code on Social Security (Central) Rules, 2026 - Notified 8 May 2026 The SS Code Central Rules, notified on 8 May 2026, were developed under Sections 154, 155, 158, and 159 of the Code on Social Security. They operationalise procedures across multiple areas which are as follows: Gig and platform worker registration: The Rules prescribe procedures for the registration of gig and platform workers with social security organisations. Eligibility conditions and registration procedures are prescribed under the Rules. The rate and manner of aggregator contributions remain to be notified separately by the Central Government. ESI contributions: The Rules provide procedures for computing and depositing Employees' State Insurance contributions under the new wage definition, aligning with ESIC's December 2025 circulars. Gratuity: The Rules clarify that gratuity for fixed-term employees accrues on a pro-rata basis after one year's service. Any subsequent period in excess of six months is rounded up to a full year for the purpose of gratuity calculation. Annual performance-linked payments not forming part of regular remuneration are excluded from the gratuity wage base. Crèche facilities: Establishments with 50 or more employees must provide and maintain a crèche for children under six years, situated within one kilometre of the workplace, or pay monthly crèche allowance of at least ₹500 per child for up to two children per employee. Advance gratuity applications: The Rules permit advance submission of gratuity applications where the date of retirement or cessation of employment is known in advance, removing the need for employees to claim retrospectively. Advance gratuity applications: Unified registration: All establishments, regardless of workforce size, must register electronically with the Central Government's unified social security registration portal. Existing EPF and ESI registrations remain valid during the transition. Business transfer liability: The Rules set out procedures for joint liability of transferor and transferee employers for unpaid social security dues in business transfers. Actions under previous rules: The Rules confirm that actions validly taken under the previously repealed legislation, including registrations, filings, and contribution payments, remain valid and effective.   Karnataka Manufacturers' Action Point - SS Code Review and reassess all PF and ESI contributions under the new wage definition for the entire workforce. Identify fixed-term workers who have completed one year and calculate gratuity based on period of service accruals. Ensure the crèche obligation is assessed, any establishment with 50 or more employees must provide a crèche or pay the ₹500 monthly allowance. Begin exploring compulsory gratuity insurance products with approved insurers in anticipation of the date of notification by the appropriate government. Audit all contractor agreements for principal employer liability exposure. 4. The Occupational Safety, Health and Working Conditions Code, 2020 Overview The OSH Code is the Labour Code with the most direct operational impact on factory floors. It consolidates 13 statutes, most notably the Factories Act 1948, the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act 1970, the Inter-State Migrant Workmen Act 1979, the Building and Other Construction Workers Act 1996, and eight others into a single, unified compliance framework. It consolidates multiple sector-specific labour and safety statutes into a unified framework, with a consolidated framework of registrations, licences, returns, and inspection obligations. Key Provisions Revised Factory Thresholds The threshold for coverage as a 'factory' is raised from 10 workers (power-using premises) and 20 workers (non-power premises) under the Factories Act 1948, to 20 workers (power-using) and 40 workers (non-power) under the OSH Code. This reduces the number of smaller establishments falling within the definition of ‘factory’ under the Code. Establishments newly crossing these thresholds must implement all applicable safety and welfare requirements. Single Registration, Licence, and Annual Return The OSH Code's most operationally significant ease-of-doing-business reform is the replacement of multiple registrations and licences with a single unified framework consolidated licensing framework intended to streamline factory and contract labour compliances, and one consolidated annual return. The licence is valid for five years. This is already being integrated through Karnataka's Karmika Spandana portal for establishments where Karnataka is the appropriate government. Core Activity Restrictions on Contract Labour The OSH Code introduces a clear definition of 'core business activities' and places restrictions on engagement of contract labour in notified core activities, subject to specified exceptions. Three exceptions apply: where the work is customarily done by contractors in that industry; where the activity does not require full-time workers for the major portion of working hours; or where a sudden increase in workload of the core activity must be handled within a specified time. In this context, Karnataka's manufacturers, particularly in sectors with deep contract labour dependencies must carefully map their workforce arrangements against this framework. The contractor licence threshold has also been raised: contractors employing fewer than 50 contract workers no longer require a licence under the OSH Code, up from the earlier threshold of 20 workers under the Contract Labour Act. This provides relief for smaller sub-contractors engaged by manufacturers. Women Workers - Night Shifts The OSH Code removes the blanket prohibition on women working night shifts that existed under the Factories Act. Women may now work before 6 AM and after 7 PM in any establishment, subject to their written consent, and provided the employer has put in place documented safety measures including secure transport arrangements, adequate lighting, CCTV surveillance in specified areas, security personnel on site, well-lit washrooms, and drinking water facilities. In this context, Karnataka's garment, electronics, and pharmaceutical manufacturing sectors, which employ large numbers of women, this enables 24-hour operations with corresponding safety infrastructure obligations. Annual Health Check-ups Annual medical examinations are mandated for workers in specified categories. Karnataka's draft OSH rules propose that these examinations apply to workers over 40 years of age. The March 2026 Ministry FAQs indicate that where Central and State rules differ on the age threshold, the applicable rules depend on whether the Central or State Government is the appropriate government for the establishment in question. Inter-State Migrant Workers Inter-state migrant workers shall become eligible for journey allowance for round-trip travel to their home state once every 12 months, after completing 180 days of work. This is particularly relevant for Karnataka's construction and manufacturing sectors, which rely significantly on migrant labour from other states. The Occupational Safety, Health and Working Conditions (Central) Rules, 2026 - Notified 8 May 2026 The OSH Code Central Rules, notified on 8 May 2026, address the procedural machinery for the Code's provisions. For manufacturing companies, the most significant elements are: Appointment letters: Mandatory issuance of appointment letters to all workers is prescribed. Workers who have not previously received appointment letters are required to be issued them within three months of commencement of the OSH Code Central Rules. The format and prescribed particulars for appointment letters are set out in the Rules. Registration and cessation: Forms for registration of establishments and cessation of operations are prescribed. The Rules also operationalise the consolidated licensing framework covering both factory operations and contract labour. Working hours and overtime: The Rules retain the 48-hour weekly cap. Daily working hours, intervals, and spread-over periods for different classes of establishments and workers are to be notified separately by the appropriate government. Consent for overtime work is mandatory. The framework permits flexible distribution of working hours subject to prescribed daily and weekly limits, overtime requirements, and approval conditions. Principal employer obligations for contract labour: Where contract workers are engaged at the principal employer's premises, the principal employer must provide basic facilities including toilets, washrooms, drinking water, first aid, canteen, and crèche. Other entitlements remain the contractor's responsibility. Contract labour grievances relating to health, working conditions, or wages must be addressed by the principal employer within one month, failing which they must be escalated to the Inspector-cum-Facilitator. Night shift duties for women employees: The Rules prescribe mandatory employer duties for women working night shifts, including obtaining prior written consent, providing safe transportation, ensuring CCTV surveillance in specified areas, and providing washroom and drinking water facilities. These requirements must be documented. National Occupational Safety and Health Advisory Board: The Rules operationalise the constitution and functioning of the National OSH Advisory Board, which sets mandatory national standards for occupational safety. A single Board replaces the multiple sector-specific advisory boards that existed under the 13 repealed statutes. Inter-state migrant worker portal: The Rules operationalise a dedicated portal for registration and tracking of inter-state migrant workers, facilitating the journey allowance and social security entitlements of this workforce. Inspector-cum-Facilitator framework: The traditional inspection framework is replaced by an Inspector-cum-Facilitator model under a web-based, randomised inspection scheme. The Inspector-cum-Facilitator framework emphasises compliance assistance alongside inspection and enforcement functions. First-time non-compliances may be subject to advisory action and an opportunity to rectify before penalties are imposed. Safety Committees: Safety Committees are mandatory for establishments with 500 or more workers. Qualified Safety Officers must be appointed in specified categories of establishments, with their qualifications, duties, and service conditions prescribed in the Rules. Accident and disease reporting: Procedures for prompt reporting of accidents, dangerous occurrences, and occupational diseases to the prescribed authorities are set out in the Rules. Employers must take immediate corrective action upon being notified of unsafe conditions.   Karnataka Manufacturers' Action Point - OSH Code Draft Karnataka OSH Code Rules were published in January 2026; final State rules are pending. In the interim, the Central OSH Rules provide the operative framework for most substantive compliance obligations. Issue appointment letters to all workers within three months. Verify factory registration status and consolidate into the single licence framework. Implement night shift safety protocols for women workers. Constitute Safety Committees for establishments with over 500 workers. Prepare for possible health check-up requirements proposed under the Karnataka draft OSH Rules, including for workers above prescribed age thresholds. 5. Karnataka's Position Karnataka's draft OSH Code rules, published in January 2026, include state-specific provisions including annual health examinations for workers over 40, online registration and licensing through the Karmika Spandana portal, and consolidated safety standards across factory, construction, and plantation sectors. The State Safety Committee and Safety Officer requirements are set out in the draft rules. Karnataka's manufacturing hubs such as, Bengaluru, Tumkuru, Dharwad, Belagavi, and Hubballi-Dharwad, are home to diverse industrial clusters operating under different sector-specific minimum wage notifications, and manufacturers must track both central and state notifications closely. Karnataka's zone-wise minimum wage structure (Zones I through IV) and bi-annual VDA revisions continue to apply under the new framework. Manufacturers with operations across multiple states should note that the Central Rules now provide a clear national baseline, but state-specific procedural rules are awaited. A factory in Bengaluru and one in Chennai may, for some months in 2026, operate under differing procedural regimes even where substantive Code provisions are identical. 6. Enhanced Penalties Under the Labour Codes The Labour Codes generally prescribe significantly higher penalties for non-compliance compared to the repealed legislation. Fines range from ₹50,000 to ₹10,00,000 depending on the nature and gravity of the violation. Repeat offences attract enhanced penalties and may, in serious cases, attract imprisonment. In business transfers, transferor and transferee are jointly liable for unpaid social security dues, a provision relevant for manufacturers pursuing M&A activity. The Inspector-cum-Facilitator model introduced under the Codes is designed to prioritise compliance guidance over punitive enforcement, particularly for first-time violations. However, the higher penalty ceiling means that deliberate or repeated non-compliance carries substantially greater financial risk than under the old framework. 7. Compliance Priorities - A Practical Checklist for Karnataka Manufacturers In light of the four Codes and the Central Rules notified on 8 May 2026, King Stubb & Kasiva recommends that manufacturing companies in Karnataka undertake the following steps as a matter of priority are as follows: Payroll and wage structure audit: Conduct a full payroll review to ensure wages (basic + DA + retaining allowance) constitute at least 50% of total remuneration for every worker category. Assess whether monetisable in-kind benefits may require consideration in the calculation. Review the impact on PF, ESI, gratuity, bonus, and overtime bases accordingly. Standing orders review: Assess whether your establishment employs 300 or more workers. If so, review and update certified standing orders, where applicable aligned with the Model Standing Orders 2026 for the manufacturing sector within the prescribed six-month window. Ensure digital worker records include all newly required fields. Grievance Redressal Committees: Establish or review GRCs for all establishments employing 20 or more workers, ensuring adequate women's representation and a maximum of 10 members. Works Committees: Assess applicability of Works Committee requirements for establishments employing 100 or more workers and no more than 20 members in total. Fixed-term employment contracts: If engaging or planning to engage workers on FTE terms, ensure written contracts comply with IR Code requirements, that benefit parity is in place, and that proportional gratuity accruals after one year of service based on period of service rendered are provisioned for in your books. Appointment letters: Issue written appointment letters to all workers. Workers who have not previously received letters must receive them within three months of commencement of the OSH Code Central Rules. Use the prescribed format and include all required particulars. Factory registration consolidation: Verify your establishment's factory registration status under the new thresholds. Move toward the consolidated single-licence framework covering factory and contract labour operations through the Karmika Spandana portal. Contract labour mapping: Map all existing contract labour arrangements against the OSH Code's core activity restrictions. Regularise or restructure arrangements in core activities that do not qualify for an exception. Note the raised contractor licence threshold of 50 workers. Principal employer obligations for contract labour: Ensure basic welfare facilities (toilets, washrooms, drinking water, first aid, canteen, crèche) are available to contract workers at your premises. Establish a one-month contract labour grievance escalation procedure. Night shift safety protocols for women: For any establishment deploying women before 6 AM or after 7 PM, implement and document the full suite of required safety measures: written consent, secure transport, CCTV, security personnel, lighting, and washroom facilities. Annual health check-ups: Implement annual medical examination programmes for workers over 40 years of age, in alignment with the Karnataka draft OSH Code rules. Crèche obligations: Assess whether your establishment crosses the 50employee threshold. Either provide a crèche within one kilometre of the workplace or pay the ₹500 monthly crèche allowance per child for up to two children per eligible employee. Social security contribution recalculation: Review and Reassess EPF and ESI contributions under the revised wage definition for all workers. Address historical under-contributions in consultation with legal counsel. Update ESI registration and contribution records for newly covered employees where applicable. Gratuity insurance: Initiate identification and onboarding of IRDAI approved gratuity insurance providers, in preparation for the compulsory gratuity insurance requirement under the SS code. Worker Re-Skilling Fund: Where retrenchments are planned, ensure timely deposits of 15 days last-drawn wages per retrenched worker to the National Worker Re-Skilling Fund within 45 days, subject to the fund and operational mechanism becoming effective upon implementation by the appropriate Government under the Industrial Relations Code, 2020 framework. Safety Committees: Constitute Safety Committees for establishments with 500 or more workers. Appoint qualified Safety Officers in categories of establishments prescribed by the Rules. Digital compliance systems: Transition wage registers, muster rolls, attendance records, overtime records, and notices to electronic formats. Ensure records retention systems can preserve data for five years. State rules monitoring: Monitor the Karnataka Labour Commissioner's Karmika Spandana portal for final notification of Karnataka OSH Code rules and SS Code rules. Adjust compliance frameworks when State rules are finalised. Inter-state migrant worker registration: Upon notification and operationalisation of the Central Government migrant worker portal, register eligible inter-state migrant workers and incorporate journey allowance entitlements into HR processes. Conclusion The continued operationalisation of the Labour Codes framework through Central Rules and implementation notifications issued in 2026 marks the effective completion of India's legislative labour reform architecture. The substantive framework is now substantially operationalised at the Central level, and Manufacturers in Karnataka, already functioning within the State-level Wage Code and IR Code framework, should approach Labour Code compliance as a present and ongoing operational requirement rather than a future transition exercise. The challenge for manufacturers is real, payroll systems, employment contracts, standing orders, contractor agreements, factory registrations, and safety protocols must all be reviewed against a substantially new framework. The financial implications alone, from recalculated PF, ESI, gratuity, and bonus bases, can be significant, particularly for companies that have historically maintained low wage structures. The opportunity, however, is equally real. Movement toward consolidated registration and licensing frameworks instead of multiple registrations. Digital compliance instead of paper-based registers. Structured FTE arrangements instead of informal contract labour. Clearly defined rules on trade union recognition, collective bargaining, and dispute resolution. For manufacturers making long-term investment decisions in Karnataka, a simplified and predictable regulatory environment is a material competitive advantage.   Authored by Ankit Chandra, Associate Partner, King Stubb and Kasiva and Contributed by Priyanka Kwatra, Director-Legal, King Stubb and Kasiva.

The Four Labour Codes and Their Rules: A Complete Guide for Karnataka's Manufacturing Sector

Introduction On 21 November 2025, the Ministry of Labour and Employment notified India's four Labour Codes, the Code on Wages, 2019 (Wage Code); the Industrial Relations Code, 2020 (IR Code); the Code on Social Security, 2020 (SS Code); and the Occupational Safety, Health and Working Conditions Code, 2020 (OSH Code), bringing one of the most sweeping overhauls of Indian employment regulation since Independence into force. These four Codes consolidate 29 Central labour laws into a unified framework, repealing foundational statutes such as the Factories Act 1948, the Industrial Disputes Act 1947, the Payment of Wages Act 1936, the Minimum Wages Act 1948, the EPF and MP Act 1952, the ESI Act 1948, the Payment of Gratuity Act 1972, the Contract Labour Act 1970, and the Trade Unions Act 1926, among others. On 8 May 2026, the Central Government completed a further landmark step by notifying the final Central Rules under all four Labour Codes this development operationalises nearly all provisions of the new labour framework that fall within the central government’s administrative jurisdiction. The Central Rules are accompanied by the Model Standing Orders 2026 for the mining, manufacturing and services sectors. This publication reflects these latest developments in full. For Karnataka's manufacturing sector, encompassing everything from large automotive and aerospace plants to mid-sized garment, pharmaceutical, and precision engineering units across the state, the implications are both immediate and structural. This article explains what the four Codes and their Rules mean in practice, and what manufacturers must do now. Legislative and Rules Status as of 9 May 2026 The Central Government has notified Rules under all four Labour Codes, substantially operationalising the central labour law framework, while state level implementation continues to evolve. Karnataka subsequently published draft rules in January 2026 under the Code on Social Security, 2020 and the Occupational Safety, Health and Working Conditions Code, 2020 to align the State framework with the evolving Labour Codes regime. Following the notification of the Central Rules on 8 May 2026, Karnataka’s final rules under the Codes are still awaited. Current Status Code on Wages, 2019 Central Rules notified on 8 May 2026. Karnataka draft Rules were issued in January 2026; revised Rules are awaited. Industrial Relations Code, 2020 Central Rules and Model Standing Orders notified on 8 May 2026. Karnataka Rules are awaited. Code on Social Security, 2020 Central Rules notified on 8 May 2026. Karnataka Rules are awaited. OSH Code, 2020 Central Rules notified on 8 May 2026. Karnataka draft Rules were issued in January 2026; final Rules are awaited.   Note for Karnataka Manufacturers Since labour falls on the Concurrent List of the Constitution, both Central and State rules apply and operate concurrently. For establishments where the State Government is the 'appropriate government' (which includes most private manufacturing units in Karnataka), State rules govern procedural matters. The Central Rules provide the substantive framework and serve as the baseline reference for States finalising their own rules. Karnataka manufacturers should continue monitor the Karnataka Labour Commissioner's Karmika Spandana portal for final notifications under the OSH Code and SS Code. 1. The Code on Wages, 2019 Overview The Wage Code consolidates four earlier statutes, the Minimum Wages Act 1948, the Payment of Wages Act 1936, the Payment of Bonus Act 1965, and the Equal Remuneration Act 1976. It establishes a uniform definition of wages applicable across all four Labour Codes, introduces universal minimum wage coverage, and introduces a statutory cap on excluded allowances under the definition of wages that has immediate payroll implications for manufacturers. Key Provisions The 50% Wage Rule Section 2(y) of the Wage Code defines 'wages' to include basic pay, dearness allowance, and retaining allowance. If other allowances such as, HRA, conveyance, special allowances, food coupons, mobile recharge, and similar items together exceed 50% of total remuneration, the excess is deemed wages. The practical effect is that excluded components of remuneration cannot exceed 50% of total remuneration for the purpose of wage computation and thus the wage base for computation of statutory benefits would be at a minimum of 50% of the entire remuneration.  This directly increases the base on which PF, ESI, gratuity, bonus, and overtime are calculated, materially raising the statutory employment cost for most manufacturers operating legacy salary structures. The March 2026 Ministry FAQs explained that in-kind benefits under terms of employment such as food coupons, ration items, and mobile recharges where such benefits are expressed or implied may constitute ‘remuneration in kind’ for the purpose of 50% calculation under the definition of wages, but only up to 15% of total wages is counted toward the wages figure, with any excess treated as allowances. Annual performance-linked payments that are not part of the regular remuneration structure are excluded from the wage definition under the final Rules. Universal Minimum Wage The Wage Code removes the old concept of 'scheduled employments,' under which minimum wage protection applied only to notified categories of work. Every worker in every sector is now covered. Karnataka structures minimum wages by skill category (unskilled, semi-skilled, skilled, and highly skilled) and geographic zone (Zone I covering specified urban areas including BBMP limits, Zone II covering other notified urban areas, Zone III covering district headquarters not falling within Zones I and II, and Zone IV covering all remaining areas of the State). Variable Dearness Allowance (“VDA”) is revised twice yearly based on the Consumer Price Index for Industrial Workers, with Karnataka's most recent revision effective from 1 April 2026. Equal Pay and Bonus The Wage Code mandates equal remuneration for equal work irrespective of gender, carrying the principle of the erstwhile Equal Remuneration Act 1976 forward with statutory force. The Wage Code also consolidates the bonus framework previously governed by the Payment of Bonus Act 1965: workers who complete at least 30 days of work in an accounting year remain eligible for bonus, further the rules clarify that where contract labour is engaged through a contractor, the principal employer bears responsibility contractor default, consistent with contract labour compliance principles. The Code on Wages (Central) Rules, 2026 - Notified 8 May 2026 The Wage Code Central Rules, notified on 8 May 2026, operationalise the Code's substantive provisions. Key features for manufacturers are: Minimum wages and VDA: Fixation and revision framework for minimum wages is prescribed, with VDA to be revised twice a year based on the Consumer Price Index for Industrial Workers. Overtime Statutory cap: The Rules retain the statutory framework of an 8-hour working day and a 48-hour working week. A worker cannot be required or permitted to work overtime in excess of 144 hours in any quarter. In addition, the Rules prescribe mandatory rest intervals and regulate the “spread-over” of working hours, i.e., the total period between the commencement and cessation of work, inclusive of rest intervals. Overtime calculation: Where workers perform overtime beyond prescribed working hour limits under applicable law, overtime wages are payable at twice the ordinary rate of wages, payable at the end of each wage period. For rounding purposes, 15–30 minutes of overtime counts as 30 minutes; more than 30 minutes counts as a full hour. Daily wage computation: For monthly-paid workers, the daily wage is calculated as 1/26th of the monthly wage, a formula relevant for overtime, leave encashment, and gratuity purposes. Digital compliance: Employers may maintain wage registers, wage slips, overtime records, attendance registers, and notices in electronic formats. Records must be preserved for five years. Principal employer bonus liability: The Rules recognises the liability of the principal employer to ensure minimum statutory bonus is paid to contract workers where a contractor defaults. Standardised formats: Formats for wage registers, wage slips, salary registers, attendance registers, and employee registers have been standardised and prescribed. Nomination framework: A formal nomination framework for employees with respect to wage-linked entitlements has been introduced.   Karnataka Manufacturers' Action Point - Wage Code Karnataka issued draft Wage Rules in January 2026. Conduct an immediate payroll audit to ensure wages constitute at least 50% of total remuneration for all categories of workers. Restructure CTC bands to comply, and recompute PF, ESI, gratuity, and bonus bases accordingly. Update wage registers and wage slip to the prescribed digital formats. Note that certain in-kind benefits capable of monetary valuation may need to be considered while applying the 50% wage threshold. 2. The Industrial Relations Code, 2020 Overview The IR Code consolidates three foundational statutes: the Trade Unions Act 1926, the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act 1946, and the Industrial Disputes Act 1947. It introduces meaningful changes to standing orders, dispute resolution, collective bargaining, and retrenchment thresholds and is accompanied by the newly notified Model Standing Orders 2026 specifically covering the manufacturing sector. Key Provisions Standing Orders - Raised Threshold and Model Orders Under the old framework, industrial establishments employing 100 or more workers were required to frame and certify standing orders. The IR Code raises this threshold to 300 workers, giving small and mid-sized manufacturing units the flexibility to govern service conditions through employment contracts, HR policies and internal service rules rather than formally certified standing orders. A Karnataka-specific note: IT and ITES establishments in the state have historically held a conditional exemption from the standing orders requirement, most recently extended until June 2029. The continued operation of existing Karnataka IT/ITES exemptions may depend on transitional notifications and fresh exemptions issued under the IR Code framework. Retrenchment, Layoff and Closure The threshold for prior government approval before retrenchment, layoff, or closure rises from 100 to 300 workers. Establishments below this threshold may restructure their workforce without government permission, subject to prescribed notice periods and compensation obligations. For each worker retrenched, the employer is required to contribute an amount equivalent to 15 days of last-drawn wages to the Worker Re-Skilling Fund within 45 days of retrenchment, subject to the fund and operational mechanism becoming effective upon implementation by the appropriate Government. Fixed-Term Employment The IR Code formally recognises fixed-term employment (FTE) as a distinct engagement category. Fixed-term employees are entitled to statutory benefits, including PF, ESI, and gratuity proportionate to the duration of their fixed-term engagement, without the conventional five-year qualifying requirement, on a par with permanent workers. Contracts expiring by their terms do not attract retrenchment compensation obligations, though early termination by the employer may, depending on the facts attract retrenchment-related obligations. Trade Union Recognition A union commanding at least 51% membership in an establishment may be designated the sole Negotiating Union with collective bargaining rights. Where no union reaches this threshold, a Negotiating Council comprising representatives of all unions with at least 20% membership is constituted. This rationalises the historically fragmented multi-union landscape in Karnataka's larger manufacturing centres. Dispute Resolution The IR Code establishes time-bound adjudication mechanisms. Workers may approach the Industrial Tribunal directly after 45 days of failed conciliation. Strikes and lockouts require 14 days advance notice. Critically, one of the other major changes brought about to the definition of ‘strike’ is the inclusion of concerted casual leave by 50% or more workers employed in an industry. The Industrial Relations (Central) Rules, 2026 and Model Standing Orders 2026 - Notified 8 May 2026 The IR Code Central Rules, notified on 8 May 2026, address the procedural framework for key provisions. The accompanying Model Standing Orders 2026, separately notified for the manufacturing sector, are particularly significant such as: Grievance Redressal Committees (GRC): Mandatory for establishments with 20 or more workers. GRC is a mechanism for resolving individual employee grievances at the workplace level. Committees must have equal employer and worker representation, not exceeding 10 members in total, and must include adequate representation of women workers. Works committees: works committee are mandatory for every industrial establishment employing 100 or more workers, in order to promote day to day cooperation between employers and workers. Works Committee may consist of up to 20 members, with worker representatives not less than employer representatives, ensuring balanced participation in matters of collective workplace interest. Manufacturing Sector: The Model Standing Orders 2026 for the manufacturing sector classify workers into categories including permanent, temporary, apprentice, probationer, badli, fixed-term, and casual workers. They prescribe rules on attendance, leave, shift work, misconduct, and disciplinary proceedings. Compared to the 1946 framework, recognise the Internal Complaints Committees for sexual harassment related complaints and grievance redressal committees under the IR Code. Digital worker records: The new standing orders require workers' records to include mobile number, email address, ESI number, gratuity nominee, and training history, reflecting a shift to digitised employment records. Lay-off and retrenchment applications: The Rules delegate authority to Joint Secretary-level officers to examine applications for lay-off, retrenchment, and closure in establishments where the Central Government is the appropriate government. Union recognition and election procedures: Digital processes are prescribed for conciliation proceedings, notices, and election procedures for worker representatives. Settlement agreements: Provisions for the form and binding nature of collective agreements, effective for up to three years, are set out in the Rules.   Karnataka Manufacturers' Action Point - IR Code Central IR Code Rules are now in force. Establishments with 300 or more workers must frame standing orders aligned with the Model Standing Orders 2026 for the manufacturing sector within the prescribed six-month window. Establishments with over 20 workers must constitute Grievance Redressal Committees immediately. Review and formalise trade union recognition strategy with IR Code requirements. 3. The Code on Social Security, 2020 Overview The SS Code consolidates nine statutes, most notably the EPF and Miscellaneous Provisions Act 1952, the ESI Act 1948, the Payment of Gratuity Act 1972, and the Maternity Benefit Act 1961. It is the Code with the broadest structural ambition, extending social security coverage to gig and platform workers, unorganised sector employees, inter-state migrants, and other categories previously excluded from the formal social security net. For manufacturers, its most immediate implications flow from the redefined wage definition and revised gratuity framework for fixed term employees. Key Provisions Wage Redefinition - Cascading Impact on PF, ESI, and Gratuity The SS Code adopts the same definition of 'wages' as the Wage Code. This has cascading implications for statutory contributions. The ESIC clarified through circulars in December 2025 that the new wage definition must be applied in computing ESI contributions, and that employees previously excluded from ESI coverage due salary structuring practices may now fall within the scheme. Employers should reassess their entire workforce database for contribution recalculation. Gratuity - Extended to Fixed-Term Workers and New Categories Fixed-term employees are entitled to gratuity proportionate to the period of service rendered, even where they do not complete the conventional five-year qualifying period applicable to regular employees. The SS Code also recognises applicability of gratuity provisions to piece-rate workers, seasonal workers, and disabled workers. The current ceiling of ₹20 lakhs continues to apply until modified by the Central Government. Under the SS Code, employers (other than government-controlled establishments) are required to obtain compulsory gratuity insurance, the date for this obligation is yet to be notified by the appropriate government, but manufacturers should begin identifying and engaging approved insurers now. Maternity Benefits The SS Code carries forward the protections of the Maternity Benefit Act 1961. Women employees who have worked for at least 80 days in the previous 12 months immediately preceding the expected date of delivery are entitled to maternity benefits including paid leave, creche access, and nursing breaks. Principal Employer Liability for Contract Labour The SS Code retains principal employer liability. Where a contractor fails to make PF or ESI contributions for its contract workers, the principal employer is jointly and severally liable. In the event of a business transfer, the transferee employer is also jointly liable with the transferor for unpaid social security dues, a provision highly relevant for manufacturers engaged in mergers, acquisitions, or plant transfers. Gig and Platform Workers For the first time, gig and platform workers have formal legal recognition under the SS Code. Aggregators must contribute 1–2% of their annual turnover (capped at 5% of total payments to gig workers) toward a dedicated Social Security Fund for such workers. This provision is primarily relevant to manufacturers engaging technology-platform-based logistics or delivery services, and to establishments that classify portions of their workforce through digital platforms. The Code on Social Security (Central) Rules, 2026 - Notified 8 May 2026 The SS Code Central Rules, notified on 8 May 2026, were developed under Sections 154, 155, 158, and 159 of the Code on Social Security. They operationalise procedures across multiple areas which are as follows: Gig and platform worker registration: The Rules prescribe procedures for the registration of gig and platform workers with social security organisations. Eligibility conditions and registration procedures are prescribed under the Rules. The rate and manner of aggregator contributions remain to be notified separately by the Central Government. ESI contributions: The Rules provide procedures for computing and depositing Employees' State Insurance contributions under the new wage definition, aligning with ESIC's December 2025 circulars. Gratuity: The Rules clarify that gratuity for fixed-term employees accrues on a pro-rata basis after one year's service. Any subsequent period in excess of six months is rounded up to a full year for the purpose of gratuity calculation. Annual performance-linked payments not forming part of regular remuneration are excluded from the gratuity wage base. Crèche facilities: Establishments with 50 or more employees must provide and maintain a crèche for children under six years, situated within one kilometre of the workplace, or pay monthly crèche allowance of at least ₹500 per child for up to two children per employee. Advance gratuity applications: The Rules permit advance submission of gratuity applications where the date of retirement or cessation of employment is known in advance, removing the need for employees to claim retrospectively. Advance gratuity applications: Unified registration: All establishments, regardless of workforce size, must register electronically with the Central Government's unified social security registration portal. Existing EPF and ESI registrations remain valid during the transition. Business transfer liability: The Rules set out procedures for joint liability of transferor and transferee employers for unpaid social security dues in business transfers. Actions under previous rules: The Rules confirm that actions validly taken under the previously repealed legislation, including registrations, filings, and contribution payments, remain valid and effective.   Karnataka Manufacturers' Action Point - SS Code Review and reassess all PF and ESI contributions under the new wage definition for the entire workforce. Identify fixed-term workers who have completed one year and calculate gratuity based on period of service accruals. Ensure the crèche obligation is assessed, any establishment with 50 or more employees must provide a crèche or pay the ₹500 monthly allowance. Begin exploring compulsory gratuity insurance products with approved insurers in anticipation of the date of notification by the appropriate government. Audit all contractor agreements for principal employer liability exposure. 4. The Occupational Safety, Health and Working Conditions Code, 2020 Overview The OSH Code is the Labour Code with the most direct operational impact on factory floors. It consolidates 13 statutes, most notably the Factories Act 1948, the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act 1970, the Inter-State Migrant Workmen Act 1979, the Building and Other Construction Workers Act 1996, and eight others into a single, unified compliance framework. It consolidates multiple sector-specific labour and safety statutes into a unified framework, with a consolidated framework of registrations, licences, returns, and inspection obligations. Key Provisions Revised Factory Thresholds The threshold for coverage as a 'factory' is raised from 10 workers (power-using premises) and 20 workers (non-power premises) under the Factories Act 1948, to 20 workers (power-using) and 40 workers (non-power) under the OSH Code. This reduces the number of smaller establishments falling within the definition of ‘factory’ under the Code. Establishments newly crossing these thresholds must implement all applicable safety and welfare requirements. Single Registration, Licence, and Annual Return The OSH Code's most operationally significant ease-of-doing-business reform is the replacement of multiple registrations and licences with a single unified framework consolidated licensing framework intended to streamline factory and contract labour compliances, and one consolidated annual return. The licence is valid for five years. This is already being integrated through Karnataka's Karmika Spandana portal for establishments where Karnataka is the appropriate government. Core Activity Restrictions on Contract Labour The OSH Code introduces a clear definition of 'core business activities' and places restrictions on engagement of contract labour in notified core activities, subject to specified exceptions. Three exceptions apply: where the work is customarily done by contractors in that industry; where the activity does not require full-time workers for the major portion of working hours; or where a sudden increase in workload of the core activity must be handled within a specified time. In this context, Karnataka's manufacturers, particularly in sectors with deep contract labour dependencies must carefully map their workforce arrangements against this framework. The contractor licence threshold has also been raised: contractors employing fewer than 50 contract workers no longer require a licence under the OSH Code, up from the earlier threshold of 20 workers under the Contract Labour Act. This provides relief for smaller sub-contractors engaged by manufacturers. Women Workers - Night Shifts The OSH Code removes the blanket prohibition on women working night shifts that existed under the Factories Act. Women may now work before 6 AM and after 7 PM in any establishment, subject to their written consent, and provided the employer has put in place documented safety measures including secure transport arrangements, adequate lighting, CCTV surveillance in specified areas, security personnel on site, well-lit washrooms, and drinking water facilities. In this context, Karnataka's garment, electronics, and pharmaceutical manufacturing sectors, which employ large numbers of women, this enables 24-hour operations with corresponding safety infrastructure obligations. Annual Health Check-ups Annual medical examinations are mandated for workers in specified categories. Karnataka's draft OSH rules propose that these examinations apply to workers over 40 years of age. The March 2026 Ministry FAQs indicate that where Central and State rules differ on the age threshold, the applicable rules depend on whether the Central or State Government is the appropriate government for the establishment in question. Inter-State Migrant Workers Inter-state migrant workers shall become eligible for journey allowance for round-trip travel to their home state once every 12 months, after completing 180 days of work. This is particularly relevant for Karnataka's construction and manufacturing sectors, which rely significantly on migrant labour from other states. The Occupational Safety, Health and Working Conditions (Central) Rules, 2026 - Notified 8 May 2026 The OSH Code Central Rules, notified on 8 May 2026, address the procedural machinery for the Code's provisions. For manufacturing companies, the most significant elements are: Appointment letters: Mandatory issuance of appointment letters to all workers is prescribed. Workers who have not previously received appointment letters are required to be issued them within three months of commencement of the OSH Code Central Rules. The format and prescribed particulars for appointment letters are set out in the Rules. Registration and cessation: Forms for registration of establishments and cessation of operations are prescribed. The Rules also operationalise the consolidated licensing framework covering both factory operations and contract labour. Working hours and overtime: The Rules retain the 48-hour weekly cap. Daily working hours, intervals, and spread-over periods for different classes of establishments and workers are to be notified separately by the appropriate government. Consent for overtime work is mandatory. The framework permits flexible distribution of working hours subject to prescribed daily and weekly limits, overtime requirements, and approval conditions. Principal employer obligations for contract labour: Where contract workers are engaged at the principal employer's premises, the principal employer must provide basic facilities including toilets, washrooms, drinking water, first aid, canteen, and crèche. Other entitlements remain the contractor's responsibility. Contract labour grievances relating to health, working conditions, or wages must be addressed by the principal employer within one month, failing which they must be escalated to the Inspector-cum-Facilitator. Night shift duties for women employees: The Rules prescribe mandatory employer duties for women working night shifts, including obtaining prior written consent, providing safe transportation, ensuring CCTV surveillance in specified areas, and providing washroom and drinking water facilities. These requirements must be documented. National Occupational Safety and Health Advisory Board: The Rules operationalise the constitution and functioning of the National OSH Advisory Board, which sets mandatory national standards for occupational safety. A single Board replaces the multiple sector-specific advisory boards that existed under the 13 repealed statutes. Inter-state migrant worker portal: The Rules operationalise a dedicated portal for registration and tracking of inter-state migrant workers, facilitating the journey allowance and social security entitlements of this workforce. Inspector-cum-Facilitator framework: The traditional inspection framework is replaced by an Inspector-cum-Facilitator model under a web-based, randomised inspection scheme. The Inspector-cum-Facilitator framework emphasises compliance assistance alongside inspection and enforcement functions. First-time non-compliances may be subject to advisory action and an opportunity to rectify before penalties are imposed. Safety Committees: Safety Committees are mandatory for establishments with 500 or more workers. Qualified Safety Officers must be appointed in specified categories of establishments, with their qualifications, duties, and service conditions prescribed in the Rules. Accident and disease reporting: Procedures for prompt reporting of accidents, dangerous occurrences, and occupational diseases to the prescribed authorities are set out in the Rules. Employers must take immediate corrective action upon being notified of unsafe conditions.   Karnataka Manufacturers' Action Point - OSH Code Draft Karnataka OSH Code Rules were published in January 2026; final State rules are pending. In the interim, the Central OSH Rules provide the operative framework for most substantive compliance obligations. Issue appointment letters to all workers within three months. Verify factory registration status and consolidate into the single licence framework. Implement night shift safety protocols for women workers. Constitute Safety Committees for establishments with over 500 workers. Prepare for possible health check-up requirements proposed under the Karnataka draft OSH Rules, including for workers above prescribed age thresholds. 5. Karnataka's Position Karnataka's draft OSH Code rules, published in January 2026, include state-specific provisions including annual health examinations for workers over 40, online registration and licensing through the Karmika Spandana portal, and consolidated safety standards across factory, construction, and plantation sectors. The State Safety Committee and Safety Officer requirements are set out in the draft rules. Karnataka's manufacturing hubs such as, Bengaluru, Tumkuru, Dharwad, Belagavi, and Hubballi-Dharwad, are home to diverse industrial clusters operating under different sector-specific minimum wage notifications, and manufacturers must track both central and state notifications closely. Karnataka's zone-wise minimum wage structure (Zones I through IV) and bi-annual VDA revisions continue to apply under the new framework. Manufacturers with operations across multiple states should note that the Central Rules now provide a clear national baseline, but state-specific procedural rules are awaited. A factory in Bengaluru and one in Chennai may, for some months in 2026, operate under differing procedural regimes even where substantive Code provisions are identical. 6. Enhanced Penalties Under the Labour Codes The Labour Codes generally prescribe significantly higher penalties for non-compliance compared to the repealed legislation. Fines range from ₹50,000 to ₹10,00,000 depending on the nature and gravity of the violation. Repeat offences attract enhanced penalties and may, in serious cases, attract imprisonment. In business transfers, transferor and transferee are jointly liable for unpaid social security dues, a provision relevant for manufacturers pursuing M&A activity. The Inspector-cum-Facilitator model introduced under the Codes is designed to prioritise compliance guidance over punitive enforcement, particularly for first-time violations. However, the higher penalty ceiling means that deliberate or repeated non-compliance carries substantially greater financial risk than under the old framework. 7. Compliance Priorities - A Practical Checklist for Karnataka Manufacturers In light of the four Codes and the Central Rules notified on 8 May 2026, King Stubb & Kasiva recommends that manufacturing companies in Karnataka undertake the following steps as a matter of priority are as follows: Payroll and wage structure audit: Conduct a full payroll review to ensure wages (basic + DA + retaining allowance) constitute at least 50% of total remuneration for every worker category. Assess whether monetisable in-kind benefits may require consideration in the calculation. Review the impact on PF, ESI, gratuity, bonus, and overtime bases accordingly. Standing orders review: Assess whether your establishment employs 300 or more workers. If so, review and update certified standing orders, where applicable aligned with the Model Standing Orders 2026 for the manufacturing sector within the prescribed six-month window. Ensure digital worker records include all newly required fields. Grievance Redressal Committees: Establish or review GRCs for all establishments employing 20 or more workers, ensuring adequate women's representation and a maximum of 10 members. Works Committees: Assess applicability of Works Committee requirements for establishments employing 100 or more workers and no more than 20 members in total. Fixed-term employment contracts: If engaging or planning to engage workers on FTE terms, ensure written contracts comply with IR Code requirements, that benefit parity is in place, and that proportional gratuity accruals after one year of service based on period of service rendered are provisioned for in your books. Appointment letters: Issue written appointment letters to all workers. Workers who have not previously received letters must receive them within three months of commencement of the OSH Code Central Rules. Use the prescribed format and include all required particulars. Factory registration consolidation: Verify your establishment's factory registration status under the new thresholds. Move toward the consolidated single-licence framework covering factory and contract labour operations through the Karmika Spandana portal. Contract labour mapping: Map all existing contract labour arrangements against the OSH Code's core activity restrictions. Regularise or restructure arrangements in core activities that do not qualify for an exception. Note the raised contractor licence threshold of 50 workers. Principal employer obligations for contract labour: Ensure basic welfare facilities (toilets, washrooms, drinking water, first aid, canteen, crèche) are available to contract workers at your premises. Establish a one-month contract labour grievance escalation procedure. Night shift safety protocols for women: For any establishment deploying women before 6 AM or after 7 PM, implement and document the full suite of required safety measures: written consent, secure transport, CCTV, security personnel, lighting, and washroom facilities. Annual health check-ups: Implement annual medical examination programmes for workers over 40 years of age, in alignment with the Karnataka draft OSH Code rules. Crèche obligations: Assess whether your establishment crosses the 50employee threshold. Either provide a crèche within one kilometre of the workplace or pay the ₹500 monthly crèche allowance per child for up to two children per eligible employee. Social security contribution recalculation: Review and Reassess EPF and ESI contributions under the revised wage definition for all workers. Address historical under-contributions in consultation with legal counsel. Update ESI registration and contribution records for newly covered employees where applicable. Gratuity insurance: Initiate identification and onboarding of IRDAI approved gratuity insurance providers, in preparation for the compulsory gratuity insurance requirement under the SS code. Worker Re-Skilling Fund: Where retrenchments are planned, ensure timely deposits of 15 days last-drawn wages per retrenched worker to the National Worker Re-Skilling Fund within 45 days, subject to the fund and operational mechanism becoming effective upon implementation by the appropriate Government under the Industrial Relations Code, 2020 framework. Safety Committees: Constitute Safety Committees for establishments with 500 or more workers. Appoint qualified Safety Officers in categories of establishments prescribed by the Rules. Digital compliance systems: Transition wage registers, muster rolls, attendance records, overtime records, and notices to electronic formats. Ensure records retention systems can preserve data for five years. State rules monitoring: Monitor the Karnataka Labour Commissioner's Karmika Spandana portal for final notification of Karnataka OSH Code rules and SS Code rules. Adjust compliance frameworks when State rules are finalised. Inter-state migrant worker registration: Upon notification and operationalisation of the Central Government migrant worker portal, register eligible inter-state migrant workers and incorporate journey allowance entitlements into HR processes. Conclusion The continued operationalisation of the Labour Codes framework through Central Rules and implementation notifications issued in 2026 marks the effective completion of India's legislative labour reform architecture. The substantive framework is now substantially operationalised at the Central level, and Manufacturers in Karnataka, already functioning within the State-level Wage Code and IR Code framework, should approach Labour Code compliance as a present and ongoing operational requirement rather than a future transition exercise. The challenge for manufacturers is real, payroll systems, employment contracts, standing orders, contractor agreements, factory registrations, and safety protocols must all be reviewed against a substantially new framework. The financial implications alone, from recalculated PF, ESI, gratuity, and bonus bases, can be significant, particularly for companies that have historically maintained low wage structures. The opportunity, however, is equally real. Movement toward consolidated registration and licensing frameworks instead of multiple registrations. Digital compliance instead of paper-based registers. Structured FTE arrangements instead of informal contract labour. Clearly defined rules on trade union recognition, collective bargaining, and dispute resolution. For manufacturers making long-term investment decisions in Karnataka, a simplified and predictable regulatory environment is a material competitive advantage. Authored by Ankit Chandra, Associate Partner, King Stubb and Kasiva and Contributed by Priyanka Kwatra, Director-Legal, King Stubb and Kasiva.

Reconsidering Compromise and FIR Registration: A Doctrinal Analysis of Mandatory FIR Registration under the CrPC and BNSS

Introduction The relationship between compromise settlements and the mandatory registration of FIRs continues to generate significant debate within Indian criminal jurisprudence. A recurring question before courts is whether an attempted settlement between parties can dilute or postpone the statutory obligation of the police to register an FIR where information discloses the commission of a cognisable offence. The issue lies at the intersection of two important legal principles: the mandatory registration of cognisable offences under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“CrPC”) and the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (“BNSS”), and the limited doctrine of compounding of offences under Section 320 CrPC. While criminal law recognises settlement in certain private disputes, Indian courts have consistently maintained that serious offences involving public wrongs cannot be neutralised through private compromise. This article examines the statutory framework governing FIR registration, the jurisprudence on compromise in criminal proceedings, and the doctrinal distinction between private disputes and offences affecting public justice. It also analyses the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Kuldeep Singh & Anr. v. State of Punjab (2026)[1], which reaffirmed that compromise cannot obstruct FIR registration or investigation in serious offences, particularly under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (“SC/ST Act”). Statutory Framework Mandatory Registration of FIRs under Section 154 CrPC and the BNSS Section 154(1) of the CrPC employs mandatory language by providing that every information relating to the commission of a cognisable offence “shall” be reduced to writing and registered as a First Information Report (“FIR”). The Constitution Bench judgment in Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh[2] authoritatively settled the law by holding that registration of an FIR is compulsory where information discloses a cognisable offence. The Supreme Court clarified that no preliminary enquiry is ordinarily permissible except in narrowly defined categories such as: Matrimonial disputes Commercial transactions Medical negligence cases Cases involving abnormal delay The rationale behind mandatory FIR registration is rooted in Article 14 of the Constitution and the rule of law. The Court recognised that allowing unrestricted police discretion at the pre-registration stage often resulted in selective enforcement and denial of justice in sensitive matters, including caste atrocities, sexual offences, and dowry-related crimes. The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 substantially retains this position. The BNSS continues to impose a mandatory duty upon the police to register information disclosing cognisable offences, subject only to limited preliminary enquiry in exceptional categories. Compoundable and Non-Compoundable Offences Section 320 CrPC contains an exhaustive list of offences that may be compounded, either with or without court permission. By necessary implication, offences not included within Section 320 are non-compoundable. Section 320(9) expressly states that no offence shall be compounded except as provided under the section. The doctrinal basis for this distinction is clear: Compoundable offences generally involve private disputes with limited societal impact. Non-compoundable offences are treated as wrongs against society and public order. Indian courts have repeatedly emphasised that serious offences involving violence, corruption, sexual crimes, organised crime, or offences under special statutes cannot ordinarily be extinguished through private settlement. Even where courts exercise inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC to quash proceedings on settlement grounds, such powers are exercised cautiously and only where the dispute is overwhelmingly private in nature. The SC/ST Act and Public Interest in Prosecution The Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 occupies a distinct statutory position within Indian criminal law. Offences under the SC/ST Act are: Cognisable Non-bailable Non-compoundable Section 15A of the Act further strengthens victim protection by requiring prompt recording of statements and ensuring procedural safeguards for victims and witnesses. The legislative objective of the statute is not merely individual grievance redressal, but broader social justice and deterrence against caste-based discrimination and violence. Consequently, attempts at compromise cannot override the State’s obligation to investigate and prosecute offences under the Act. Judicial Principles Governing FIR Registration and Compromise Mandatory Nature of FIR Registration The Supreme Court in Lalita Kumari unequivocally held that registration of an FIR is a statutory obligation once information discloses a cognisable offence. The Court observed that police officers cannot act as gatekeepers deciding which offences deserve registration. Any refusal to register an FIR may invite disciplinary as well as legal consequences. This principle is particularly important in cases involving vulnerable communities, where social pressure or power imbalance may otherwise suppress complaints. Limits of Compromise in Criminal Proceedings In Gian Singh v. State of Punjab[3], the Supreme Court clarified that criminal proceedings may be quashed on settlement grounds only where: The dispute is predominantly civil or personal in nature; and The offence does not have serious societal consequences. The Court specifically excluded heinous offences and offences under special statutes from the scope of compromise-based quashing. Similarly, in Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab[4], the Supreme Court reiterated that settlement cannot erase serious criminality affecting society at large. The jurisprudence therefore distinguishes between: Private wrongs capable of settlement; and Public wrongs where prosecution serves a broader societal function. FIRs Based on Police Information Indian criminal procedure does not require that an FIR originate exclusively from the victim’s complaint. Police officers may themselves register FIRs upon receiving credible information regarding a cognisable offence. This principle assumes particular significance in cases involving: Caste-based violence Sexual offences Domestic violence Organised intimidation Victims in such cases may often hesitate to approach authorities due to fear, coercion, or social stigma. Allowing police-generated FIRs ensures that the criminal justice system remains capable of protecting vulnerable persons even where direct complaints are absent. Public Justice versus Private Settlement Indian criminal law fundamentally recognises that certain offences transcend individual harm and affect the social order itself. Permitting private settlements to extinguish prosecution in serious offences would: Undermine deterrence Encourage coercive settlements Enable abuse of power by influential accused persons Weaken public confidence in the justice system The doctrine therefore preserves a balance between restorative settlement in minor disputes and the State’s larger obligation to prosecute offences affecting society. Illustration: Kuldeep Singh v. State of Punjab (2026) The Supreme Court’s decision in Kuldeep Singh & Anr. v. State of Punjab (2026) provides a recent and important reaffirmation of these principles. The case involved allegations that the accused: Fired gunshots; and Used caste-based abusive language against the complainant. The High Court granted anticipatory bail partly on the basis that: The parties had attempted settlement; and The FIR was based on a police officer’s statement rather than the complainant’s complaint. The Supreme Court reversed the order. The Court held that: An attempted compromise cannot prevent registration or investigation of a cognisable offence; A police officer’s statement can validly constitute the basis of an FIR; and Victims of caste atrocities may often refrain from directly reporting offences because of social pressure or intimidation. Importantly, the Court reaffirmed that offences under the SC/ST Act involve significant public interest considerations and cannot be diluted through private settlement efforts. The judgment strengthens the doctrinal position that criminal law cannot be privatised where the offence impacts public justice and constitutional values. Conclusion The jurisprudence governing compromise and FIR registration reflects a careful balance between individual autonomy and societal interest in criminal prosecution. Indian criminal procedure mandates registration of FIRs where cognisable offences are disclosed, while limiting compromise only to specified categories of minor offences. Judicial decisions such as Lalita Kumari, Gian Singh, and Narinder Singh consistently reinforce that serious offences cannot be neutralised through private settlement. The Supreme Court’s ruling in Kuldeep Singh further clarifies that attempted compromise has no bearing on the statutory duty to register and investigate cognisable offences, particularly under special legislations such as the SC/ST Act. Ultimately, the doctrine affirms a foundational principle of criminal justice: prosecution of serious offences serves not merely private interests, but the broader constitutional commitment to public justice, equality, and rule of law. By K. Vidya, Partner – King Stubb and Kasiva https://ksandk.com/people/vidya-k/ [Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.13439 of 2025] ↑ (2014) 2 SCC 1 ↑ Gian Singh v. State of Punjab Citation: (2012) 10 SCC 303 ↑ Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab Citation: (2014) 6 SCC 466 ↑  

Challenging ‘Purported Awards’ under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996: Doctrinal Foundations and Emerging Jurisprudence

Introduction One of the recurring jurisdictional questions in Indian arbitration law concerns the status of a “purported arbitral award” namely, an award rendered in the absence of a valid arbitration agreement or by a tribunal lacking inherent jurisdiction. The issue raises a fundamental doctrinal question: can such an award be challenged under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“Arbitration Act”), or is it a legal nullity that may simply be ignored? The debate lies at the intersection of several foundational principles of arbitration law, including competence-competence, separability of arbitration agreements, minimal judicial intervention, and the finality of arbitral awards. It also probes the conceptual distinction between: A non-existent arbitral award; and A void but legally existing arbitral award. Indian courts have increasingly adopted the view that even jurisdictional objections relating to the absence of a valid arbitration agreement must ordinarily be raised within the statutory framework of Section 34. This approach reflects the broader judicial position that the Arbitration Act is a self-contained and exhaustive code governing challenges to arbitral awards in India. This article analyses the doctrinal foundations governing “purported awards” under Indian arbitration law, the scope of Section 34 challenges to arbitral awards, the treatment of jurisdictional defects in arbitral proceedings, and the evolving judicial approach towards nullity arguments in arbitration disputes. The issue assumes considerable significance in commercial arbitration disputes involving forged arbitration clauses, invalid arbitration agreements, lack of arbitral jurisdiction, and challenges to awards rendered by improperly constituted tribunals. Statutory Framework Governing Challenges to Arbitral Awards Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 provides the primary statutory mechanism for setting aside arbitral awards in India. The provision permits courts to set aside arbitral awards on limited grounds, including: Incapacity of a party; Invalidity of the arbitration agreement; Lack of proper notice; Decisions beyond the scope of the arbitration agreement; Improper composition of the arbitral tribunal; and Conflict with the public policy of India. Importantly, Section 34(3) prescribes a strict limitation period of three months (extendable by thirty days in limited circumstances) from the date of receipt of the arbitral award. Indian arbitration jurisprudence has therefore consistently treated Section 34 as the exclusive statutory remedy for challenging arbitral awards, including awards allegedly rendered without jurisdiction. Competence-Competence and Jurisdictional Objections Section 16 of the Arbitration Act incorporates the doctrine of competence-competence, which empowers an arbitral tribunal to rule on its own jurisdiction, including objections relating to the existence or validity of the arbitration agreement. Section 16(2) specifically requires jurisdictional objections to be raised before the arbitral tribunal itself. Thereafter, a party aggrieved by the tribunal’s determination may challenge the resulting award under Section 34. Section 34(2)(a)(ii) expressly permits courts to set aside arbitral awards where the arbitration agreement itself is invalid. Consequently, the statutory framework contemplates that even challenges based on lack of arbitral jurisdiction must ordinarily be addressed through Section 34 proceedings. This approach reinforces the legislative objective of minimising parallel proceedings and preserving procedural discipline in arbitration disputes. Exhaustive Nature of Section 34 Indian arbitration law is substantially modelled on the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration. Courts have therefore repeatedly emphasised that the Arbitration Act constitutes a complete and self-contained code. In Fuerst Day Lawson Ltd. v. Jindal Exports Ltd.[1], the Supreme Court held that recourse against arbitral awards is ordinarily confined to the statutory remedies specifically provided under the Arbitration Act. This principle has significant implications for purported awards. If parties were permitted to bypass Section 34 by treating certain awards as nullities outside the statutory framework, it would undermine: The finality of arbitral proceedings; The statutory limitation period under Section 34(3); and The legislative policy favouring certainty and minimal judicial intervention in arbitration matters. Accordingly, Indian courts have generally discouraged collateral attacks on arbitral awards outside the framework of Section 34 proceedings. Distinguishing Non-Existent Awards from Void Awards A central doctrinal issue concerns the distinction between: An arbitral award that is legally non-existent due to absence of jurisdiction; and An arbitral award that exists but is void or liable to be set aside. Certain judicial authorities have recognised that where no arbitration agreement existed at all, the arbitrator lacks inherent jurisdiction and the resulting award may constitute a nullity. However, even in such situations, courts have increasingly taken the view that the declaration of nullity must ordinarily be obtained through judicial proceedings under Section 34 rather than through collateral challenges or by simply ignoring the award. This approach reflects practical and policy considerations. A purported award may continue to appear valid to third parties, enforcement courts, or commercial counterparties unless formally set aside. Permitting parties to disregard awards unilaterally would create significant uncertainty within the arbitral system. Scope of Judicial Review under Section 34 The scope of interference under Section 34 remains deliberately narrow. Courts do not sit in appeal over arbitral awards and cannot ordinarily re-appreciate evidence or substitute their own interpretation of contractual disputes. However, judicial interference is permissible where the award suffers from: Patent illegality; Violation of natural justice; Jurisdictional defects; or Conflict with the fundamental policy of Indian law. In Associate Builders v. Delhi Development Authority[2] and Delhi Airport Metro Express Pvt. Ltd. v. Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd.[3], the Supreme Court reaffirmed that Section 34 review is confined to exceptional circumstances involving patent illegality or public policy violations. The jurisprudence therefore seeks to balance arbitral finality with judicial supervision necessary to preserve procedural legitimacy and jurisdictional integrity. Fraud, Invalid Arbitration Agreements, and Purported Awards Indian courts have consistently held that fraud vitiates all legal acts. Consequently, an arbitral award obtained through fraudulent means or based on a forged arbitration agreement may be liable to be set aside under Section 34(2)(b)(ii) on grounds of conflict with public policy. This becomes particularly relevant where: Arbitration clauses are fabricated or forged; Consent to arbitration is absent; or The tribunal assumes jurisdiction without a legally enforceable arbitration agreement. Even in such cases, however, Indian courts generally require parties to invoke the statutory challenge mechanism under Section 34 rather than treating the award as automatically void without judicial determination. The Concept of a ‘Purported Award’ A “purported award” refers to a decision rendered by a tribunal that allegedly lacked jurisdiction due to absence of a valid arbitration agreement or because the tribunal exceeded the scope of its authority. The argument advanced in support of the nullity doctrine is that where jurisdiction never existed, no legally recognisable arbitral award could have come into existence at all. Accordingly, such an award should not require formal setting aside proceedings. However, this approach raises serious difficulties within the framework of the Arbitration Act. First, it potentially creates a parallel mechanism for challenging arbitral awards outside Section 34. Second, it undermines the mandatory limitation regime under Section 34(3), since parties could theoretically challenge awards indefinitely by characterising them as nullities. Third, it conflicts with the legislative policy underlying the Arbitration Act and the UNCITRAL Model Law, both of which contemplate annulment proceedings as the principal remedy against jurisdictionally defective awards. Indian courts have therefore increasingly favoured the position that jurisdictional defects must ordinarily be adjudicated through Section 34 proceedings. UNCITRAL Model Law and International Arbitration Practice Article 34 of the UNCITRAL Model Law similarly provides an exhaustive framework for setting aside arbitral awards, including awards rendered without jurisdiction or in the absence of a valid arbitration agreement. Model Law jurisdictions generally require parties to pursue annulment proceedings rather than disregard arbitral awards unilaterally. The Indian approach aligns with this broader international arbitration framework and reinforces India’s pro-arbitration policy aimed at ensuring certainty, enforceability, and procedural discipline in arbitral proceedings. Impact of N.N. Global Mercantile on Jurisdictional Challenges The Constitution Bench judgment in N.N. Global Mercantile Pvt. Ltd. v. Indo Unique Flame Ltd.[4] further clarified the doctrine of separability and the treatment of arbitration agreement validity under Indian law. The Court emphasised that once an arbitral award is rendered, issues relating to the validity or enforceability of the arbitration agreement must ordinarily be addressed within the statutory challenge framework under Section 34. This reinforces the broader judicial trend against collateral challenges to arbitral awards outside the Arbitration Act. Policy Considerations and Finality of Arbitral Awards Requiring challenges to purported awards to be brought under Section 34 serves several important policy objectives: Preservation of certainty and finality in arbitration proceedings; Prevention of indefinite collateral attacks on arbitral awards; Maintenance of procedural discipline and limitation periods; and Alignment with international arbitration standards. Although critics argue that requiring formal setting aside proceedings for jurisdictionally defective awards imposes unnecessary procedural burdens, Indian arbitration jurisprudence has largely prioritised finality and certainty over informal nullity arguments. Conclusion The concept of a “purported arbitral award” highlights the doctrinal distinction between non-existent awards and void but legally existing awards under Indian arbitration law. However, the prevailing judicial position increasingly recognises that even where an arbitral tribunal allegedly lacked jurisdiction, parties must ordinarily seek formal relief under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Indian courts have consistently treated the Arbitration Act as a self-contained and exhaustive code governing challenges to arbitral awards. Consequently, jurisdictional objections, allegations of invalid arbitration agreements, and claims of nullity are generally required to be adjudicated within the statutory framework and limitation regime prescribed under Section 34. The emerging jurisprudence including recent judicial developments concerning purported awards and invalid arbitration agreements reinforces the broader policy objectives of arbitral finality, certainty, and minimal judicial intervention. As arbitration continues to play an increasingly central role in commercial dispute resolution in India, the treatment of purported awards under Section 34 will remain a significant issue in the evolving landscape of Indian arbitration jurisprudence. By Deepika Kumari, Partner – King Stubb and Kasiva https://ksandk.com/people/deepika-kumari/ (2011) 8 SCC 333 ↑ (2015) 3 SCC 49 ↑ 2024 SCC OnLine SC 522 ↑ (2023) 7 SCC 1 ↑  

Section 133 of the Indian Contract Act: Variance of Contract and Limitation of Surety Liability upon Unilateral Enhancement of Credit Facilities

Introduction Contracts of guarantee play a critical role in modern banking and commercial lending transactions. Financial institutions routinely rely on personal guarantees and corporate guarantees to secure repayment obligations where borrowers lack sufficient collateral security. At the same time, the Indian Contract Act, 1872 incorporates important statutory protections to ensure that a surety’s liability is not unfairly expanded beyond the terms originally consented to. One of the most significant safeguards is contained in Section 133 of the Contract Act, which provides that any variance in the terms of the contract between the principal debtor and the creditor, made without the consent of the surety, discharges the surety in respect of transactions subsequent to such variance. The provision reflects a foundational principle of Indian suretyship law: A surety’s liability is consensual and cannot be unilaterally enlarged without the surety’s approval. An important question that frequently arises in banking disputes and loan recovery litigation is whether unilateral enhancement of a borrower’s credit facility amounts to a “variance” under Section 133, and if so, whether such enhancement limits or discharges the liability of the guarantor. This issue assumes considerable practical significance in cases involving enhancement of cash credit limits, restructuring of loan facilities, modification of sanctioned borrowing arrangements, and disputes concerning the extent of guarantor liability in banking transactions. This article examines the scope of Section 133 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, the doctrinal relationship between Sections 128, 133, and 139, and the evolving judicial interpretation of unilateral variations in credit facilities and discharge of surety liability under Indian banking and contract law. Statutory Framework Governing Contracts of Guarantee Contracts of Guarantee under Section 126 Section 126 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 defines a contract of guarantee as a contract to perform the promise or discharge the liability of a third person in case of default. The three principal parties to a contract of guarantee are: The creditor; The principal debtor; and The surety or guarantor. Section 128 further provides that the liability of the surety is co-extensive with that of the principal debtor unless otherwise agreed by contract. However, this principle of co-extensive liability is not absolute or unlimited. The surety’s liability remains subject to the statutory protections contained in Sections 133 to 139 of the Contract Act. Variance of Contract under Section 133 Section 133 provides that any variance in the terms of the contract between the principal debtor and the creditor, made without the consent of the surety, discharges the surety with respect to transactions taking place after the variance. A “variance” generally refers to any material alteration in the underlying contractual arrangement that changes the nature or extent of the surety’s risk without consent. Importantly, Section 133 is triggered by the fact of alteration itself. The provision does not require the surety to establish actual financial prejudice or loss arising from the modification. The statutory policy underlying Section 133 is clear: A surety remains bound only to the obligations voluntarily undertaken; Creditors cannot unilaterally expand the surety’s exposure; and Any material increase in risk without consent attracts statutory protection. This principle is particularly relevant in disputes concerning unilateral enhancement of sanctioned credit limits and modifications of loan arrangements by banks and financial institutions. Distinction Between Sections 133 and 139 Indian suretyship jurisprudence often distinguishes between the operation of Sections 133 and 139 of the Contract Act. Section 133: Variance of Risk Section 133 concerns alteration of contractual risk itself. The provision applies where the creditor and principal debtor materially vary the underlying contractual arrangement without the surety’s consent. The discharge arises automatically upon proof of variance. Section 139: Impairment of Surety’s Remedy Section 139 applies where the creditor acts inconsistently with the rights of the surety and thereby impairs the surety’s eventual remedy against the principal debtor. Unlike Section 133, Section 139 ordinarily requires proof that the creditor’s conduct prejudiced the surety’s legal rights or recovery remedies. Typical examples include: Release of securities; Collusion with the debtor; or Conduct reducing the surety’s ability to seek reimbursement. The doctrinal distinction is therefore important: Section 133 addresses alteration of risk exposure; Section 139 addresses impairment of recovery rights. Partial Nature of Discharge under Section 133 Judicial interpretation has consistently recognised that discharge under Section 133 is generally partial rather than absolute. Where the creditor alters the contractual arrangement without the surety’s consent, the surety is discharged only in respect of transactions occurring after the variance. Liability for obligations incurred before the alteration ordinarily continues to subsist. This approach strikes a balance between: Preserving contractual certainty for lenders; and Protecting sureties against unanticipated enlargement of liability. The law therefore prevents unilateral expansion of risk while ensuring that the surety remains accountable for obligations originally undertaken. Supreme Court Decision in Bhagyalaxmi Co-Operative Bank Ltd. v. Babaldas Amtharam Patel The principles governing unilateral enhancement of credit facilities were recently examined in Bhagyalaxmi Co-Operative Bank Ltd. v. Babaldas Amtharam Patel[1]. Factual Background The dispute arose from a cash credit facility of ₹4 lakh extended by Bhagyalaxmi Co-Operative Bank Ltd. to certain borrowers against personal guarantees furnished by sureties. Subsequently, the bank unilaterally enhanced the credit limit without obtaining the consent of the guarantors. Following this enhancement, the borrowers drew amounts exceeding the originally sanctioned facility. The central issue before the Court was whether such unilateral enhancement constituted a “variance” under Section 133 and whether the sureties could be held liable for the increased exposure. Court’s Reasoning The Supreme Court undertook a detailed analysis of Sections 128, 133, and 139 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. The Court held that enhancement of the credit limit without the consent of the sureties amounted to a material variance in the contractual arrangement. The judgment clarified that Section 133 is attracted immediately upon material alteration of the underlying contract, irrespective of whether the surety proves actual prejudice or financial harm. Accordingly, the sureties were discharged from liability in respect of amounts advanced beyond the original sanctioned limit. However, the Court also reaffirmed that the surety’s liability remained co-extensive with the original facility under Section 128. Consequently, the guarantors continued to remain liable for the original ₹4 lakh facility together with applicable interest. Clarification on Section 139 The Court rejected the argument that Section 139 applied to the facts of the case. It observed that impairment of remedy under Section 139 requires conduct by the creditor that prejudices the surety’s legal remedies against the principal debtor. Mere enhancement of exposure, without more, does not impair the surety’s reimbursement rights because the surety continues to retain full legal recourse against the principal debtor for any amount lawfully paid. The decision therefore provides important doctrinal clarity regarding the distinction between variance under Section 133 and impairment of remedy under Section 139. Position within Existing Jurisprudence Reaffirmation of Partial Discharge The judgment reinforces the established principle that discharge under Section 133 is ordinarily partial rather than total. The surety is discharged only with respect to liabilities arising from the altered arrangement, while obligations under the original contractual structure continue to survive. Clarifying the Scope of Co-Extensive Liability The decision also refines the interpretation of Section 128 by emphasising that co-extensive liability does not mean unlimited liability. The surety’s obligation remains bounded by: The original contractual framework; and Statutory protections contained in the Contract Act. This is especially important in modern banking transactions involving restructuring, enhancement of facilities, and revision of credit arrangements. Practical Implications for Banks and Financial Institutions Need for Surety Consent in Loan Enhancements Banks and lenders must ensure that any enhancement of sanctioned credit facilities or modification of loan terms is carried out only after obtaining the express consent of guarantors. Failure to secure such consent may prevent recovery of enhanced amounts from the surety. Drafting of Guarantee Agreements Financial institutions may increasingly incorporate clauses permitting: Enhancement of credit limits; Restructuring of facilities; and Variation of borrowing arrangements within specified limits. However, absent clear contractual authorisation, statutory protections under Section 133 will continue to prevail. Litigation Strategy in Banking Recovery Proceedings The judgment indicates that courts are likely to segregate liabilities in disputes involving enhanced facilities: The principal debtor may remain liable for the entire debt; The surety’s liability may be restricted to the originally guaranteed exposure. This distinction is likely to significantly impact banking recovery suits, insolvency proceedings, and enforcement actions involving personal guarantees. Conclusion The decision in Bhagyalaxmi Co-Operative Bank Ltd. v. Babaldas Amtharam Patel reinforces the protective architecture governing contracts of guarantee under the Indian Contract Act, 1872. By holding that unilateral enhancement of credit facilities constitutes a variance under Section 133, the Court reaffirmed the principle that a surety’s liability cannot be enlarged without consent. The judgment also provides important doctrinal clarity regarding the relationship between Sections 128, 133, and 139, while balancing commercial certainty with fairness to guarantors. Ultimately, the ruling highlights that suretyship is not a mechanism for unlimited or open-ended liability. Rather, it remains a carefully defined contractual obligation grounded in consent, statutory protection, and clearly delineated risk allocation. By Siddartha Karnani, Partner – King Stubb and Kasiva https://ksandk.com/people/siddartha-karnani-2/ 2026 INSC 205 ↑   

Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act: Bombay High Court Clarifies That Compensation Is Not Capped by the Foundational Award

Introduction The principle underlying compulsory land acquisition is that when private property is acquired by the State for a public purpose, affected landowners must receive fair and reasonable compensation. However, under the framework of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, a significant disparity historically emerged between landowners who sought judicial enhancement of compensation under Section 18 and those who did not. In many cases, landowners lacking financial resources, legal awareness, or access to legal representation accepted the compensation awarded by the Collector, while similarly situated landowners who pursued references under Section 18 often secured substantially higher compensation from reference courts. To remedy this inequity, Parliament introduced Section 28A through the 1984 amendment to the Land Acquisition Act. The provision enables similarly situated landowners to seek redetermination of compensation based on a judicial award obtained by other landowners arising out of the same acquisition notification. Despite the remedial nature of Section 28A, an important interpretative question has continued to arise before courts: Does compensation under Section 28A remain strictly confined to the rate awarded in the foundational reference award, or can higher compensation be granted where evidence justifies such enhancement? This issue was recently examined by the Bombay High Court in Geetabai Eknath Salunke (since deceased) through LRs v. Sub-Divisional Officer-cum-Land Acquisition Officer & Others[1]. Justice Shailesh P. Brahme clarified that compensation under Section 28A is not capped by the foundational award and that authorities must undertake an independent evaluation of evidence relating to irrigation status, land classification, structures, wells, trees, and other improvements. The judgment is significant for land acquisition compensation disputes, redetermination proceedings under Section 28A, valuation of irrigated agricultural land, and compensation claims for land improvements under Indian land acquisition law. Statutory Framework Governing Section 28A Under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the Collector initially determines market value and compensation payable for acquired land. A landowner dissatisfied with the award may seek a judicial reference under Section 18 for enhancement of compensation. Recognising that many landowners were unable to pursue such remedies, Parliament enacted Section 28A as a beneficial and remedial provision permitting redetermination of compensation on the basis of a court award obtained by similarly situated landowners. The Supreme Court has consistently interpreted Section 28A liberally in order to advance its remedial purpose. In Union of India v. Pradeep Kumari[2] and Union of India v. Hansoli Devi[3], the Court emphasised that: Section 28A must receive a purposive and liberal interpretation; Redetermination may be based on subsequent awards relating to similarly situated lands; and The provision seeks to eliminate inequality among landowners affected by the same acquisition. However, certain earlier decisions adopted a narrower interpretation by treating the foundational reference award as a strict ceiling on compensation under Section 28A. The Bombay High Court’s decision in Geetabai Eknath Salunke revisits and clarifies this issue. Facts and Issues Before the Court The dispute arose from land acquisitions carried out pursuant to a common Section 4 notification. In earlier Section 18 reference proceedings, the reference court had fixed compensation at: ₹1,500 per Are for dry land; and ₹3,000 per Are for seasonally irrigated land. These awards subsequently became the foundational awards for applications under Section 28A. However, while deciding the redetermination applications, the Sub-Divisional Land Acquisition Officer: Treated all lands uniformly as dry lands; Awarded compensation ranging only between ₹1,414 and ₹1,715 per Are; and Denied compensation for wells, houses, trees, and other improvements. When the matter reached the reference court under Section 28A(3), the claims were dismissed on the ground that compensation could not exceed the foundational rates awarded in the earlier references. The High Court therefore considered three central questions: Whether compensation under Section 28A is confined to the foundational award; Whether landowners can establish misclassification of land, including irrigation status; and Whether compensation for improvements may be granted even if absent from the foundational award. Court’s Analysis Section 28A as a Beneficial and Remedial Provision The Court reaffirmed that Section 28A must be interpreted purposively in light of its remedial objective. Justice Brahme clarified that the expression “on the basis of” used in Section 28A does not require authorities to mechanically replicate the exact rate awarded in the foundational reference case. Instead, the foundational award serves merely as: A benchmark; or An evidentiary starting point. It does not operate as a binding statutory ceiling on compensation. The Court further observed that compensation under Section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act extends beyond mere market value of the land and may include: Wells; Trees; Crops; Residential structures; and Other improvements attached to the acquired property. A restrictive interpretation limiting compensation strictly to the foundational award would defeat the beneficial purpose underlying Section 28A. Higher Compensation under Section 28A The High Court held that authorities adjudicating applications under Section 28A are not bound to award compensation identical to the foundational award without independent evaluation. The Court emphasised that: Compensation must be determined on the basis of evidence in each individual case; Higher compensation may be granted where evidence justifies enhancement; and Mechanical application of foundational rates is legally unsustainable. Accordingly, both the approach adopted by the Special Land Acquisition Officer and the refusal of the reference court to consider enhancement beyond the foundational rates were found to be erroneous. Irrigation Status and Misclassification of Land A significant aspect of the judgment concerns land classification and valuation of irrigated agricultural land. The Court recognised that classification of land as irrigated or dry has a direct bearing on market valuation and compensation. Landowners were therefore held entitled to establish incorrect classification through evidence such as: Revenue records; Irrigation bills; Agricultural records; and Oral evidence. Failure to consider such evidence would undermine the remedial and equitable purpose of Section 28A. The judgment is therefore particularly relevant in agricultural land acquisition compensation disputes where irrigation facilities materially affect land value. Compensation for Wells, Trees, Houses, and Improvements One of the most important clarifications in the judgment relates to compensation for improvements attached to acquired land. The Court held that compensation under Section 28A is not restricted only to the heads of compensation awarded in the foundational reference award. Consequently: Compensation for wells, structures, trees, and houses may still be awarded; Absence of such compensation in the foundational award is not determinative; and Denial of such claims would perpetuate inequality against landowners who did not initially seek reference under Section 18. The Court distinguished earlier judgments that dealt narrowly with market value alone and clarified that those decisions did not prohibit compensation for improvements under Section 28A proceedings. Final Decision of the Bombay High Court The Bombay High Court ultimately: Affirmed compensation rates of ₹1,500 per Are for dry land and ₹3,000 per Are for irrigated land; Recognised entitlement of irrigated landholders to higher compensation; Set aside the blanket denial of compensation for improvements; and Remanded the matter for fresh adjudication regarding compensation for wells, houses, trees, and structures. Most importantly, the Court expressly clarified that the foundational award serves only as a guiding benchmark and not as a cap on compensation under Section 28A. Doctrinal Significance of the Judgment The judgment significantly advances the jurisprudence relating to Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act by: Reinforcing the beneficial character of Section 28A; Rejecting unduly restrictive interpretations of foundational awards; Clarifying the evidentiary role of reference awards; and Recognising broader entitlement to compensation for land improvements. The ruling harmonises earlier judicial approaches and provides doctrinal clarity regarding: Scope of redetermination proceedings; Role of independent evidence; Classification of irrigated land; and Compensation for ancillary improvements. Practical Implications For Landowners The judgment confirms that Section 28A is not merely a narrow procedural remedy. Landowners may: Produce independent evidence regarding irrigation status and valuation; Seek compensation for wells, trees, and structures; and Claim enhanced compensation beyond the foundational award where justified. For Land Acquisition Authorities and Courts Authorities must conduct an independent assessment of evidence instead of mechanically applying rates from foundational awards. The ruling imposes a duty to consider all permissible heads of compensation under the statute. For the State While the judgment may increase compensation liabilities in land acquisition proceedings, it also incentivises more accurate and equitable initial valuation exercises, potentially reducing prolonged litigation and future disputes. Conclusion The decision of the Bombay High Court in Geetabai Eknath Salunke (since deceased) through LRs v. Sub-Divisional Officer-cum-Land Acquisition Officer & Others constitutes an important clarification of the scope and purpose of Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. By holding that compensation under Section 28A is not automatically capped by the foundational reference award, the Court has restored the provision to its intended remedial purpose namely, eliminating inequality among similarly situated landowners affected by compulsory acquisition. The judgment reinforces the principle that compensation must reflect the actual value of acquired land, irrigation facilities, structures, wells, trees, and other improvements based on proper evidentiary assessment. As land acquisition disputes continue to remain a major area of litigation in India, the ruling is likely to have substantial implications for redetermination proceedings, agricultural land valuation disputes, and compensation claims arising from compulsory acquisition. By Adnan Siddiqui, Partner – King Stubb and Kasiva https://ksandk.com/people/adnan-siddiqui/ Geetabai Eknath Salunke (Since Deceased) v. Sub Divisional Officer-cum-Land Acquisition Officer (Neutral Citation: 2026:BHC-AUG:8726) ↑ AIR 1995 SC 2259 ↑ Appeal (civil) 9477 of 1994 ↑  

Investing in Indian Infrastructure: What Foreign Investors Need to Evaluate Beyond Financing

India’s infrastructure sector continues to attract unprecedented international attention. From renewable energy parks and airports to data centres, logistics corridors, urban mobility systems and green hydrogen projects, global institutional investors are increasingly viewing Indian infrastructure as a long-term strategic asset class rather than merely an emerging market opportunity. Sovereign wealth funds, pension funds, infrastructure platforms, private equity investors, multilateral institutions and global operators are deploying significant capital into India’s infrastructure ecosystem as the country accelerates energy transition, digital expansion, manufacturing growth and urban modernisation. However, while financing remains central to infrastructure investment, sophisticated investors are increasingly recognising that successful infrastructure investing in India depends on far more than capital deployment alone. In 2026, foreign investors evaluating Indian infrastructure projects are focusing just as heavily on regulatory stability, concession enforceability, ESG exposure, operational resilience, dispute preparedness, climate adaptation risk and long-term governance frameworks as they are on financing structures and investment returns. As infrastructure assets become larger, more technology-driven and more politically significant, infrastructure investment in India is increasingly becoming a multidisciplinary legal, commercial and strategic exercise. This article examines the key legal, regulatory and operational considerations foreign investors should evaluate when investing in Indian infrastructure projects in 2026. India’s Infrastructure Opportunity Is Reshaping Global Investment Strategy India remains one of the world’s largest infrastructure growth markets. Massive investment is expected across: Renewable Energy and Battery Storage – Attracting significant investment due to the ongoing energy transition, increasing focus on sustainability, and the growing availability of ESG-driven capital. Airports and Aviation Infrastructure – Benefiting from rising passenger traffic, expanding air connectivity, and continued privatisation initiatives. Data Centres and AI Infrastructure – Experiencing rapid growth as a result of digital transformation, increasing data consumption, cloud adoption, and the expansion of AI-driven technologies. Logistics and Warehousing – Supported by manufacturing growth, e-commerce expansion, and efforts to strengthen domestic and global supply chains. Urban Mobility and Metro Rail – Driven by rapid urbanisation, population growth in cities, and government-led smart city and public transport initiatives. Green Hydrogen and Industrial Decarbonisation – Emerging as a key investment area due to climate transition policies, net-zero commitments, and incentives for cleaner industrial operations. Unlike short-cycle investments, infrastructure assets often involve concession periods, operational timelines and investment horizons extending across decades. As a result, institutional investors increasingly evaluate Indian infrastructure through the lens of long-term stability, regulatory predictability and operational resilience. This is particularly relevant for foreign investors seeking stable yield-generating infrastructure assets in India with inflation-linked or annuity-style cashflows. Infrastructure Financing Alone No Longer Determines Investment Success Historically, cross-border infrastructure transactions were primarily structured around financing considerations such as debt availability, offshore borrowing frameworks and capital efficiency. That approach is changing rapidly. Today, many global investors view infrastructure risk management in India as equally important as financing itself. A commercially attractive infrastructure project may still encounter serious challenges arising from: regulatory intervention; concession renegotiation; land acquisition disputes; ESG-related scrutiny; operational instability; tariff revisions; climate-related disruption; government counterparty risk; or enforcement delays. As a result, infrastructure due diligence in India has become substantially more sophisticated and multidisciplinary. Regulatory Stability Has Become a Core Investment Consideration One of the most important factors foreign investors evaluate today is regulatory predictability. Infrastructure assets operate within highly regulated sectors involving: tariff frameworks; environmental approvals; government concessions; licensing structures; public utility obligations; and sector-specific compliance regimes. Even commercially successful projects may face financial stress if regulatory frameworks evolve unexpectedly during long operational periods. Investors are therefore increasingly focused on evaluating: Tariff Revision Exposure – Changes in tariff structures can directly impact project revenues and affect the predictability of long-term cash flows. Change-in-Law Protections – The extent to which concession agreements provide protection against adverse legal or regulatory changes significantly influences project bankability and investor confidence. Approval Dependency – Infrastructure projects often require multiple regulatory approvals and clearances, and delays in obtaining them can affect project timelines and increase costs. State-Level Policy Variation – Differences in regulatory frameworks and policy implementation across states can create uncertainty and pose execution challenges for projects operating in multiple jurisdictions. Sectoral Regulatory Overlap – The involvement of multiple regulators and overlapping compliance requirements can increase administrative complexity and complicate operational compliance. For global infrastructure investors, legal enforceability and policy continuity now play a central role in investment approval decisions. Concession Agreements Are Often More Important Than Financing Documents Foreign investors entering Indian infrastructure projects increasingly recognise that concession agreements are the true foundation of project bankability. Whether in airports, renewable energy, transportation, logistics or urban infrastructure, concession frameworks determine: operational rights; payment structures; termination compensation; government obligations; dispute resolution mechanisms; revenue-sharing arrangements; and force majeure protections. Poorly drafted concession agreements may expose investors to prolonged disputes, regulatory uncertainty and operational disruption even where the underlying asset remains commercially viable. As infrastructure projects become larger and more politically sensitive, investors are placing greater emphasis on concession risk analysis, change-in-law protection and contractual enforceability. This trend is particularly visible in airport PPP projects, renewable energy concessions and urban mobility infrastructure investments in India. ESG and Climate Risk Are Now Investment-Critical Issues Environmental, Social and Governance (“ESG”) considerations are no longer treated as secondary compliance requirements in infrastructure transactions. Global institutional investors increasingly evaluate infrastructure assets based on: climate resilience; sustainability alignment; governance standards; environmental exposure; labour practices; community impact; and long-term transition risk. Projects with weak ESG frameworks may face: financing constraints; reputational exposure; investor withdrawal risk; operational opposition; and reduced exit attractiveness. Conversely, ESG-aligned infrastructure investments in India are increasingly attracting: sovereign wealth capital; climate-focused infrastructure funds; sustainability-linked financing; and lower-cost institutional capital. This shift is especially visible in sectors such as: Renewable Energy Platforms – Witnessing sustained institutional interest, with investors pursuing long-term consolidation opportunities to build scalable clean energy portfolios. Green Hydrogen Projects – Emerging as a major focus area for climate transition financing, supported by government initiatives and decarbonisation goals. Sustainable Logistics Infrastructure – Attracting investment aimed at developing low-carbon supply chains, energy-efficient warehousing, and environmentally responsible transportation networks. Battery Storage and Grid Systems – Gaining momentum as investors seek to enhance energy resilience, support renewable energy integration, and strengthen grid reliability. Green Urban Infrastructure – Benefiting from ESG-linked capital flows directed towards sustainable public infrastructure, including smart cities, green buildings, water management, and urban mobility solutions. For foreign investors, ESG preparedness is increasingly viewed as a long-term value protection strategy rather than simply a reporting obligation. Climate Adaptation Is Becoming Central to Infrastructure Investment Decisions Climate risk is now materially influencing infrastructure investment strategy in India. Investors are increasingly evaluating whether infrastructure assets can withstand: extreme heat; flooding; water scarcity; power reliability issues; coastal exposure; and climate-related operational disruption. Climate resilience assessments are becoming particularly important for: logistics corridors; industrial infrastructure; ports; data centres; renewable energy projects; and urban infrastructure systems. In many transactions, climate adaptation planning is now integrated into technical diligence, ESG assessment and long-term operational forecasting. This represents a major shift in how infrastructure asset risk is evaluated globally. Infrastructure M&A and Platform Investments Are Accelerating Foreign investors are no longer focusing only on greenfield infrastructure development. A major trend in 2026 is the rise of platform acquisitions, operational infrastructure buyouts and portfolio consolidation strategies across Indian infrastructure sectors. International investors are increasingly acquiring: operational renewable energy portfolios; warehousing and logistics platforms; airport-linked infrastructure assets; digital infrastructure ecosystems; transportation concessions; and infrastructure investment trust (“InvIT”) assets. These transactions often provide: Existing Revenue Visibility – Operational assets typically have established revenue streams, providing greater predictability of cash flows and investment returns. Operational Asset History – A proven performance track record helps investors assess asset quality and reduces the construction and development risks associated with greenfield projects. Established Regulatory Approvals – Necessary licenses, permits, and approvals are generally already in place, enabling faster transaction completion and deployment of capital. Platform Scalability – Acquiring operational assets can create opportunities for portfolio expansion through additional acquisitions, integration, and operational synergies. Institutional Governance Structures – Mature governance, compliance, and reporting frameworks enhance transparency and provide greater comfort to institutional investors and lenders. As a result, infrastructure M&A in India is becoming one of the fastest-growing segments of institutional infrastructure investment activity. Government Counterparty Risk Still Requires Careful Evaluation Infrastructure investments frequently involve direct or indirect government participation through: concession authorities; public procurement entities; state agencies; utility offtakers; or regulatory bodies. This creates unique risks not typically present in conventional commercial investments. Foreign investors increasingly evaluate: payment reliability; concession enforcement; policy continuity; political sensitivity; regulatory intervention risk; and dispute escalation patterns. Government counterparties may significantly influence project economics over long investment horizons, particularly in sectors such as transportation, urban infrastructure and renewable energy. As a result, political and regulatory risk allocation has become central to infrastructure investment structuring in India. Arbitration and Dispute Preparedness Matter More Than Ever Cross-border infrastructure disputes in India have increased significantly over the past decade. Common disputes involve: concession interpretation; payment delays; tariff revisions; land acquisition; project delays; termination compensation; and change-in-law claims. International investors therefore increasingly prioritise: International Arbitration Clauses – Provide access to a neutral and internationally recognized dispute resolution forum, enhancing investor confidence in cross-border transactions. Governing Law Clarity – Clearly defining the applicable law ensures contractual certainty and reduces ambiguity in the interpretation and enforcement of rights and obligations. Enforcement Planning – Proactive consideration of enforcement strategies helps protect recovery prospects and facilitates the effective execution of awards or judgments. Step-In and Substitution Rights – Enable lenders or designated parties to assume control of project operations or replace underperforming stakeholders, ensuring operational continuity and preserving asset value. Multi-Tier Dispute Resolution Frameworks – Incorporating negotiation, mediation, and arbitration mechanisms can facilitate early dispute resolution, reduce costs, and prevent prolonged litigation. India’s arbitration framework has evolved significantly in recent years, improving investor confidence in large cross-border infrastructure transactions. Nevertheless, dispute preparedness remains essential in long-duration infrastructure investments involving public authorities and regulated sectors. Distressed Infrastructure Assets Are Creating New Investment Opportunities Another important trend reshaping infrastructure investment in India is the growing interest in distressed and operational turnaround assets. Infrastructure sectors such as roads, power, logistics and urban infrastructure have witnessed financial stress over the past decade due to: aggressive bidding; demand volatility; financing stress; implementation delays; and regulatory disruption. However, many distressed infrastructure assets continue to retain substantial strategic and operational value. As a result, foreign investors are increasingly exploring: distressed infrastructure acquisitions; turnaround platforms; secondary asset purchases; insolvency-driven acquisitions; and operational consolidation opportunities. India’s Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC”) has materially accelerated infrastructure restructuring activity and institutional participation in distressed asset transactions. Data Centres, AI Infrastructure and Digital Assets Are Changing Infrastructure Investing Digital infrastructure is rapidly emerging as one of India’s most important investment themes. The rise of: AI infrastructure; cloud computing; data localisation; digital commerce; and smart urban systems has accelerated institutional investment into data centres and digital infrastructure ecosystems. Unlike traditional infrastructure sectors, digital assets combine: infrastructure-style cashflows; technology-linked scalability; global operational integration; and rapid demand expansion. Foreign investors increasingly view Indian data centre infrastructure investment as a long-term strategic growth sector with strong institutional scalability. The Future of Foreign Investment in Indian Infrastructure India’s infrastructure ecosystem is becoming increasingly integrated with global institutional capital markets. Over the next decade, investment activity is expected to accelerate across: renewable energy and climate infrastructure; logistics and industrial corridors; airports and transportation systems; AI-linked digital infrastructure; sustainable urban infrastructure; and energy transition platforms. At the same time, infrastructure investments are likely to become more: ESG-sensitive; operationally complex; governance-focused; climate-aware; and regulation-driven. For international investors, success in Indian infrastructure will increasingly depend on combining capital deployment with sophisticated legal planning, operational diligence, ESG preparedness and long-term risk management strategy. Conclusion India continues to represent one of the world’s most important long-term infrastructure investment destinations. However, modern infrastructure investing in India extends far beyond financing structures and capital availability alone. In 2026, foreign investors evaluating Indian infrastructure projects must carefully assess: regulatory stability; concession enforceability; ESG exposure; climate resilience; dispute preparedness; governance frameworks; operational scalability; and political and regulatory risk allocation. As infrastructure projects become larger, more institutionalised and more strategically significant, successful investment outcomes will increasingly depend on legal resilience, operational preparedness and sophisticated long-term structuring rather than financing alone. For global investors, India’s infrastructure opportunity remains enormous but navigating it successfully requires a far deeper evaluation framework than traditional project finance analysis alone. By Aurelia Menezes, Partner, King Stubb and Kasiva https://ksandk.com/people/aurelia-menezes/

Change in Law in Power Purchase Agreements: Coal Block Cancellation and the Allocation of Contractual Risk

Introduction The long-term stability of India’s power sector depends not only on generation capacity and infrastructure growth, but also on the legal and regulatory certainty governing fuel supply arrangements. Power Purchase Agreements (“PPAs”), particularly those executed through competitive bidding under the Electricity Act, 2003, are structured on commercial assumptions relating to the long-term availability, pricing, and sourcing of coal. When those assumptions are disrupted by judicial or regulatory intervention, a critical legal and commercial question arises: who bears the resulting economic burden? The “change in law” doctrine in Indian power sector contracts seeks to address this issue by reallocating risks arising from supervening legal or regulatory developments. However, the scope of the doctrine particularly whether it extends to judicial invalidation of resource allocation regimes has remained a contentious issue in electricity jurisprudence. This article examines the evolving legal framework governing change in law clauses in Indian PPAs, with a particular focus on coal block cancellation cases, allocation of contractual risk in infrastructure projects, and the treatment of judicial decisions as change in law events under Indian electricity law. It also analyses recent Supreme Court jurisprudence that has significantly expanded the interpretation of these provisions in the context of fuel supply disruptions in the power sector. Legal and Contractual Framework Governing Change in Law in Indian PPAs Tariff Regulation under the Electricity Act, 2003 The Electricity Act, 2003 forms the foundation of tariff regulation and contractual structuring in India’s power sector. Section 61 emphasises tariff determination based on commercial principles, consumer interest, efficiency, and recovery of reasonable costs. Section 63 permits tariff adoption through competitive bidding, while Section 79 vests the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (“CERC”) with jurisdiction over inter-state generating companies and related disputes. Within this statutory framework, PPAs operate as sophisticated risk allocation instruments. They seek to preserve the commercial viability of power generators while simultaneously ensuring tariff certainty for distribution companies (“DISCOMs”). In large-scale infrastructure and thermal power projects, fuel supply risks, regulatory changes, and governmental interventions are carefully allocated between parties through contractual mechanisms such as force majeure clauses, indemnity provisions, and change in law clauses. Structure and Purpose of Change in Law Clauses in Power Purchase Agreements Change in law clauses in Indian PPAs are designed to protect parties against unforeseen legal and regulatory developments occurring after a specified cut-off date. These clauses generally: Define “law” broadly to include statutes, subordinate legislation, notifications, governmental actions, and judicial decisions; Prescribe a contractual cut-off date after which compensation mechanisms become operational; and Provide for restitutionary relief intended to restore the affected party to the same economic position it would have occupied had the change not occurred. Such provisions are commercially significant in long-term infrastructure projects because they preserve investor confidence and mitigate regulatory uncertainty in India’s energy sector. Without these protections, projects financed on narrow tariff assumptions could become commercially unviable due to external legal developments beyond the control of contracting parties. Principles Governing Interpretation of Commercial Contracts Under Indian contract law and the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, courts generally apply the plain meaning rule while interpreting commercial contracts, with limited reliance on extrinsic evidence. Indian courts have consistently emphasised: The sanctity of commercial bargains; Respect for negotiated allocation of contractual risks; and Harmonious interpretation of contractual clauses. These principles assume particular importance in infrastructure and energy contracts where multiple provisions including indemnity clauses, force majeure clauses, and change in law clauses may overlap. Courts have therefore sought to interpret such provisions in a manner that preserves the commercial intent of sophisticated parties rather than rewriting the contractual bargain. Evolution of the “Change in Law” Doctrine in Indian Electricity Jurisprudence Indian courts have gradually adopted a broader and commercially pragmatic interpretation of change in law provisions in power sector contracts. In Energy Watchdog v. CERC[1], the Supreme Court recognised that changes in Indonesian coal pricing regulations affecting imported coal costs could trigger compensatory relief under change in law provisions. Similarly, in Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam Ltd. v. Adani Power Ltd.[2], environmental regulations introduced after the contractual cut-off date were treated as qualifying change in law events. The underlying rationale across these decisions is that where a substantive legal or regulatory development fundamentally alters the cost assumptions underlying a PPA, the contractual equilibrium must be restored to preserve the economic bargain originally contemplated by the parties. This evolving jurisprudence has significantly shaped the treatment of regulatory risk in Indian infrastructure and energy projects. Can Judicial Decisions Constitute a “Change in Law”? One of the most significant doctrinal developments in recent years concerns whether judicial decisions themselves may qualify as change in law events under PPAs. Many Indian PPAs expressly define “law” to include judgments, decrees, or interpretations issued by courts of competent jurisdiction. Consequently, courts have increasingly recognised that judicial interventions can trigger change in law protections where they materially alter the legal framework governing a project. This becomes especially relevant where judicial decisions: Invalidate existing allocation regimes; Extinguish previously vested rights relating to natural resources; or Restructure regulatory frameworks governing critical infrastructure sectors. In highly regulated industries such as electricity generation and coal mining, judicial decisions can produce commercial consequences comparable to legislative or executive action. Indian courts have therefore moved towards recognising that judicial invalidation of resource allocation frameworks may amount to a change in law event capable of triggering restitutionary compensation under PPAs. Distinguishing Indemnity Clauses from Change in Law Clauses A recurring contractual issue in infrastructure disputes concerns the distinction between indemnity provisions and change in law clauses. Judicial interpretation has consistently treated these provisions as operating in separate contractual spheres: Indemnity clauses generally address losses arising from breach, default, or fault-based liability; whereas Change in law clauses deal with external legal or regulatory developments beyond the control of contracting parties. Conflating these provisions would undermine the negotiated allocation of risk embedded within commercial contracts. Courts have therefore emphasised that contractual remedies must be interpreted independently in accordance with their intended commercial purpose. Coal Block Cancellation and Change in Law: Supreme Court’s Approach The Supreme Court’s decision in West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. v. Adhunik Power & Natural Resource Ltd.[3] provides a significant illustration of these principles in the context of coal block cancellation and fuel supply disruption in the Indian power sector. The dispute arose following the landmark judgment in Manohar Lal Sharma v. Principal Secretary[4], through which the Supreme Court cancelled numerous coal block allocations across India. As a result, affected power generators were compelled to procure coal through more expensive alternative mechanisms such as e-auctions and market purchases. The Supreme Court held that: Judicial cancellation of coal blocks, read together with subsequent legislation, constituted a valid “change in law” event; The illegality of the original coal block allocation did not negate the existence of the prior legal regime under which parties had structured their commercial arrangements; and Compensation must correspond to the point at which legal rights were effectively extinguished. At the same time, the Court clarified that compensation could not extend to costs incurred prior to the occurrence of the relevant legal change. This reinforced the requirement of establishing a direct causal nexus between the legal development and the resulting economic impact. Importantly, the Court reaffirmed that indemnity provisions cannot override change in law protections where the triggering event does not arise from contractual default or breach. The Judgment in Broader Legal Context Expansion of Change in Law Jurisprudence Earlier decisions such as Energy Watchdog v. CERC and Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam Ltd. v. Adani Power Ltd. primarily addressed foreign regulatory changes and environmental compliance costs affecting fuel pricing. The Adhunik Power decision significantly extends the doctrine by recognising that judicial cancellation of coal blocks and subsequent legislative intervention may also trigger change in law relief under PPAs. This marks an important development in Indian electricity law because it acknowledges that any public law intervention capable of altering the legal basis of fuel supply arrangements may affect the commercial assumptions underlying power generation contracts. Clarification of Contractual Risk Allocation The judgment also reinforces the principle that different contractual clauses allocate different categories of commercial risk. The Court’s reasoning aligns with earlier observations in Anglo American Metallurgical Coal Pty. Ltd. v. MMTC[5], where courts cautioned against conflating separate contractual remedies. The decision therefore strengthens legal certainty in infrastructure contracting by respecting negotiated contractual structures and preserving the commercial intent of sophisticated parties. Harmonisation of Public Law and Private Contracts By linking compensation to the extinguishment of vested rights rather than merely to the enactment of legislation, the Court harmonised public law developments with private contractual rights. The judgment reflects an important recognition that judicial decisions can substantially affect long-term commercial contracts in regulated sectors such as power and mining. Conclusion The doctrine of change in law has evolved into one of the most significant risk allocation mechanisms in India’s power sector and infrastructure financing framework. Through successive judicial decisions, Indian courts have recognised that legislative, regulatory, and judicial interventions can fundamentally alter the economic assumptions underlying long-term PPAs. The expanding interpretation of change in law clauses particularly in cases involving coal block cancellations, fuel supply disruptions, and judicial invalidation of allocation regimes reflects a broader judicial effort to preserve contractual equilibrium while respecting public law objectives. As India continues to attract investment in thermal power projects, renewable energy infrastructure, and large-scale energy transition initiatives, legal certainty surrounding change in law compensation in Indian PPAs will remain critical for investor confidence, tariff stability, and long-term infrastructure financing. The evolving jurisprudence ultimately demonstrates a careful balancing of contractual sanctity, commercial fairness, and regulatory intervention principles that will continue to shape the future of energy and infrastructure disputes in India. By Surbhi Kapoor, Partner, King Stubb and Kasiva  https://ksandk.com/people/surbhi-kapoor/ Energy Watchdog v. Central Electricity Regulatory Commission, (2017) 14 SCC 80 ↑ Appeal No. 210 of 2017 & IA No. 05 of 2018 ↑ 2026 INSC 202 ↑ 2014 (2) SCC 532 ↑ Anglo American Metallurgical Coal Pty. Ltd. v. MMTC (2025 INSC 1279) ↑  

GIFT City’s Next Phase: How India’s IFSC Is Becoming a Global Financial Hub

For years, India-linked international financing transactions were routinely structured through offshore jurisdictions such as Singapore, Dubai, Mauritius or London. Whether it involved fund management, aircraft leasing, offshore debt, private credit or cross-border investment platforms, global capital often flowed into India through foreign financial centres rather than through India itself. That dynamic is now beginning to change. GIFT City’s International Financial Services Centre (“IFSC”) is rapidly evolving from a niche offshore financing zone into a much broader institutional financial ecosystem. What started as an experiment in international banking and foreign currency transactions is now attracting activity across: aircraft leasing, private credit, fund management, sustainable finance, global treasury operations, alternative investment structures, and cross-border capital markets. Importantly, this evolution goes far beyond infrastructure financing alone. The next phase of GIFT City is increasingly about positioning India within the architecture of global finance itself. Why GIFT City Matters Beyond Infrastructure Financing The first wave of interest in GIFT City was driven largely by offshore lending and infrastructure financing. But global investors are now using IFSC structures for a much wider range of financial activities. The reason is straightforward: international investors prefer jurisdictions that offer familiarity, flexibility and efficient cross-border structuring. Historically, India’s domestic regulatory ecosystem often created friction around: Foreign Currency Restrictions – Currency controls and exchange regulations can increase structuring complexity and limit flexibility in capital movement. Cross-Border Financing Approvals – Regulatory approvals for foreign borrowing and financing arrangements may prolong transaction timelines and slow deal execution. Tax Inefficiencies – Unfavourable tax treatment, withholding taxes, and treaty-related issues can reduce overall investor returns and impact transaction economics. Offshore Fund Participation Hurdles – Restrictions on foreign investment structures and participation requirements can limit capital flexibility and access to global funding sources. Multi-Jurisdictional Compliance Burdens – Navigating differing legal, regulatory, and reporting obligations across jurisdictions can increase compliance costs and overall transaction expenses. The IFSC framework was designed to reduce many of these barriers while still operating within an Indian regulatory environment. That combination is what makes GIFT City strategically important. The Real Shift Happening Inside GIFT City The ecosystem is now moving beyond basic offshore banking activity into a much more sophisticated financial platform. Earlier, most activity centred around: international banking units, ECB-linked financing, offshore debt transactions, and foreign currency lending. Today, the conversation has expanded significantly. The IFSC ecosystem is increasingly seeing growth across: Aircraft Leasing – Helps reduce dependence on traditional foreign leasing hubs and supports the development of a domestic aircraft financing ecosystem. Private Credit Platforms – Expands access to alternative sources of capital, providing borrowers and investors with greater financing flexibility beyond conventional banking channels. Alternative Investment Funds (AIFs) – Attracts institutional and global investors by offering efficient fund structures and access to diverse investment opportunities. Sustainable Finance – Facilitates ESG-focused investments and supports the growing flow of capital towards environmentally and socially responsible projects. Treasury Operations – Enables multinational corporations and financial institutions to manage global liquidity, cash flows, and risk management functions more efficiently. Offshore Fund Structures – Enhances cross-border capital pooling by providing internationally competitive investment vehicles and regulatory frameworks. Structured Finance – Supports sophisticated financing transactions through tailored financial products, securitisation structures, and risk allocation mechanisms. Top of Form Bottom of Form   This is the transition that changes GIFT City from a financing corridor into a financial ecosystem. Aircraft Leasing Has Become One of GIFT City’s Biggest Growth Areas One of the most visible examples of this shift is aircraft leasing. India is one of the world’s fastest-growing aviation markets, but historically, a substantial portion of aircraft leasing activity was routed through jurisdictions such as Ireland and Singapore. GIFT City is increasingly positioning itself as an India-linked alternative. This matters because aircraft leasing sits at the intersection of: cross-border financing, tax structuring, asset ownership, foreign exchange exposure, regulatory compliance, and international enforcement frameworks. As aviation financing grows, GIFT City is expected to become increasingly relevant for: leasing platforms, airline financing structures, aviation asset management, and cross-border aviation capital arrangements. Why Private Credit Funds Are Increasingly Interested in IFSC Structures Private credit is becoming one of the fastest-growing segments in global finance, particularly as traditional banks face tighter regulatory oversight and exposure limits. Many private credit platforms now seek: flexible structuring, offshore participation capability, international investor access, and foreign currency financing frameworks. This aligns naturally with the IFSC ecosystem. Increasingly, GIFT City structures are being explored for: Structured Lending – Frequently used for infrastructure projects, acquisition financing, and other transactions requiring customized debt solutions. Distressed Investing – Targets special situations, turnaround opportunities, and stressed assets where traditional financing may be limited. Yield-Focused Financing – Provides long-duration capital to borrowers while offering institutional investors opportunities for stable, risk-adjusted returns. Cross-Border Debt Platforms – Facilitates the deployment of international capital into domestic and global investment opportunities through flexible lending structures. Hybrid Financing Structures – Combines debt and equity-like features to support complex transactions, bridge funding gaps, and address unique capital requirements.   As India’s capital markets mature, alternative lenders are expected to play a much larger role across infrastructure, real estate, aviation and technology-linked sectors. Sustainable Finance Is Becoming Central to the IFSC Ecosystem Another major trend shaping GIFT City is the rise of ESG-focused capital. Global institutional investors are increasingly allocating capital toward: climate-aligned assets, green financing structures, energy transition platforms, and sustainability-linked investment vehicles. This is creating growing demand for internationally aligned financing ecosystems capable of supporting: green bond issuances, ESG-focused funds, climate-transition financing, sustainability-linked lending, and carbon-related investment structures. For India, this is strategically important because future infrastructure and industrial growth will increasingly depend on access to climate-focused institutional capital. Treasury Operations and Cross-Border Financial Management A quieter but increasingly important trend involves multinational groups exploring GIFT City for treasury and financial management operations. Large businesses increasingly require integrated systems for: foreign currency management, cross-border liquidity planning, treasury centralisation, structured financing, and international cash management. This is the kind of activity typically associated with mature international financial centres. Its gradual emergence within GIFT City signals a deeper level of institutional evolution. Regulation Still Matters: Sophisticated Structures Require Sophisticated Planning Despite increasing flexibility, IFSC-linked transactions are far from legally simple. Many structures continue to involve overlapping considerations relating to: FEMA, tax law, offshore investment rules, beneficial ownership, regulatory approvals, fund structuring, and cross-border compliance. As institutional participation grows, legal and regulatory planning becomes even more important because many transactions now span multiple jurisdictions simultaneously. Why International Investors Still Prioritise Arbitration and Enforcement Global investors ultimately care about predictability. That is why many IFSC-linked transactions continue to rely on: international arbitration clauses, English law-governed documents, offshore dispute resolution frameworks, and carefully structured enforcement mechanisms. For institutional capital providers, enforceability often matters just as much as economics. This is particularly relevant for: aviation leasing, private credit, offshore financing structures, and long-duration institutional investments. The Bigger Strategic Question: Can India Build Its Own Global Financial Centre? The larger objective is much broader: to internalise more India-linked financial activity within an internationally competitive Indian ecosystem. In practical terms, that means reducing reliance on foreign offshore jurisdictions for: capital raising, fund management, structured finance, leasing, international banking, and cross-border investment activity. Whether GIFT City can eventually rival established global financial hubs remains an open question. But the direction is becoming increasingly clear. What the Next Decade Could Look Like Over the coming years, GIFT City is expected to see significant expansion across: Aircraft Leasing – Expected to witness increased aviation financing activity as more leasing and financing transactions are structured through IFSC platforms. Private Credit – Likely to expand significantly, providing borrowers with greater access to alternative capital sources beyond traditional banking channels. Sustainable Finance – Projected to see strong growth in ESG-linked financing structures, green bonds, sustainability-linked loans, and climate-focused investment products. AIF Platforms – Anticipated to attract greater institutional participation, supported by evolving regulatory frameworks and growing investor interest in alternative assets. Treasury Operations – Expected to become increasingly important for cross-border liquidity management, cash pooling, and global treasury functions. Offshore Fund Structures – Likely to facilitate the creation of larger international capital pools by offering efficient fund domiciliation and investment structures. Digital Finance Ecosystems – Poised for rapid growth through the integration of fintech innovation, digital assets, data-driven financial services, and technology-enabled financial infrastructure. The ecosystem is gradually shifting from a specialised regulatory zone into a broader institutional financial platform. Conclusion GIFT City is entering a much more sophisticated phase of development. The conversation is no longer limited to offshore lending or infrastructure financing alone. Instead, the IFSC ecosystem is increasingly expanding into aircraft leasing, private credit, fund management, sustainable finance and cross-border financial intermediation. That transition is strategically important not only for investors and financial institutions, but also for India’s broader position within global capital markets. As the ecosystem matures, successful IFSC-linked structures will increasingly depend on: regulatory preparedness, cross-border structuring efficiency, governance standards, tax planning, dispute management, and institutional credibility. The next chapter of GIFT City may ultimately be less about competing with domestic financial centres and more about whether India can establish a globally relevant offshore financial ecosystem of its own. By Aditya Bhattacharya, Partner, King Stubb and Kasiva https://ksandk.com/people/aditya-bhattacharya/

ESG and Sustainable Infrastructure Financing in India: The Investment and Regulatory Shift Reshaping Infrastructure in 2026

India’s infrastructure story is no longer being driven solely by scale, speed, and capital expenditure. In 2026, investors, lenders, regulators, and project developers are increasingly asking a different set of questions: How sustainable is the asset? Can the project withstand climate disruption? Does the governance framework inspire institutional confidence? Will the project remain financeable over the next twenty years?   Environmental, Social and Governance (“ESG”) considerations have moved far beyond corporate sustainability reports and boardroom policy discussions. Today, ESG has become deeply embedded in infrastructure financing, project valuation, regulatory approvals, investment due diligence, and long-term asset bankability across India. From renewable energy parks and green hydrogen corridors to data centres, battery storage projects, logistics infrastructure, urban mobility systems, and industrial corridors, ESG-linked financing structures are now influencing how infrastructure is planned, funded, operated, and monetised. For businesses and infrastructure sponsors, this is no longer a reputational issue alone. ESG compliance is increasingly tied to access to capital, cost of borrowing, investor participation, and long-term project viability. Why ESG Has Become Central to Infrastructure Financing Infrastructure assets inherently carry long-duration environmental and social impact. A highway, airport, energy project, industrial cluster, or data centre affects surrounding ecosystems, labour structures, land usage patterns, emissions profiles, and local communities for decades. As a result, institutional investors now evaluate infrastructure projects through a much broader lens than traditional financial metrics. Project lenders and global infrastructure funds increasingly assess: Climate resilience and environmental exposure Governance transparency and compliance culture Community engagement and rehabilitation mechanisms Labour welfare and operational sustainability Carbon intensity and transition planning Long-term regulatory stability This shift is fundamentally changing infrastructure finance in India. Projects with weak ESG frameworks are now more likely to face financing delays, regulatory scrutiny, reputational concerns, investor hesitation, and refinancing difficulties. In contrast, projects demonstrating robust ESG alignment are attracting stronger institutional participation and more competitive financing structures. ESG Is No Longer Limited to Renewable Energy Projects For several years, ESG investing in India was closely associated with solar and wind energy assets. That approach has now expanded dramatically. In 2026, ESG scrutiny extends across nearly every major infrastructure sector, including: Airports and aviation infrastructure Roads and expressways Urban infrastructure and metro systems Data centres and digital infrastructure Industrial parks and logistics hubs Smart warehousing and AI infrastructure Battery storage and clean mobility ecosystems Even sectors traditionally considered carbon-intensive are now expected to demonstrate credible sustainability transition strategies. This evolution reflects a broader global reality: institutional capital increasingly prefers infrastructure assets capable of delivering both financial returns and long-term sustainability alignment. Sustainable Infrastructure Capital Is Flooding Into India India’s infrastructure expansion aligns closely with global climate and sustainability investment themes. Large sovereign wealth funds, pension funds, development finance institutions, climate-focused private equity platforms, and multilateral lenders are actively increasing exposure to sustainable infrastructure investments in India. The attraction is clear: India requires massive infrastructure expansion over the next decade Energy transition projects continue to scale rapidly Climate-focused financing markets are deepening Demand for resilient infrastructure remains strong Long-term infrastructure returns continue attracting institutional investors This combination has accelerated the rise of ESG-linked infrastructure capital across sectors. As a result, developers seeking institutional funding increasingly need sophisticated ESG compliance structures from the earliest stages of project development. Renewable Energy Financing Is Becoming More Sophisticated Renewable energy remains India’s largest ESG-driven infrastructure segment. Solar, wind, hybrid renewable, pumped storage, and battery storage projects continue to attract substantial green financing and sustainability-linked investment. However, the market has matured significantly. Investors are no longer evaluating renewable assets solely on clean energy generation metrics. ESG due diligence now extends to: Land acquisition practices Biodiversity impact assessments Community engagement models Water usage management Supply chain sustainability Labour compliance frameworks In other words, environmental alignment alone is no longer sufficient. Institutional investors increasingly expect renewable infrastructure developers to demonstrate operational sustainability alongside decarbonisation objectives. Data Centres Have Become a Major ESG Conversation India’s rapidly expanding digital economy has turned data centres into one of the country’s fastest-growing infrastructure sectors. At the same time, they have emerged as highly ESG-sensitive assets. Data centres consume enormous amounts of electricity, cooling resources, and physical infrastructure inputs. Consequently, investors now examine: Renewable energy sourcing strategies Energy efficiency architecture Water consumption for cooling systems Carbon intensity metrics Backup energy systems Sustainable construction practices Green data centres are expected to become one of the most important sustainable infrastructure investment themes in India over the next decade. Developers unable to demonstrate credible sustainability planning may increasingly struggle to attract long-term institutional capital. Green Hydrogen and Climate Infrastructure Are Drawing Institutional Attention Green hydrogen continues to emerge as one of India’s most strategically important climate-transition sectors. Hydrogen infrastructure is closely linked with: Industrial decarbonisation Net-zero transition strategies Energy transition financing Climate-focused infrastructure investment As financing activity accelerates, hydrogen projects are increasingly being supported through: Green bonds Sustainability-linked loans Climate-focused infrastructure funds Energy transition private equity platforms Yet these projects also face significant ESG scrutiny. Investors are closely examining renewable sourcing integrity, water usage patterns, land acquisition concerns, and community impact risks before committing long-term capital. ESG Due Diligence Has Become a Core Financing Requirement One of the most significant developments in infrastructure finance is the transformation of ESG due diligence into a central credit assessment tool. Infrastructure lenders and investors now routinely assess: Climate-related operational risks Environmental compliance history Governance systems and board oversight Labour and human rights practices Supply chain sustainability exposure Community relations frameworks Sustainability disclosure systems This shift reflects growing recognition that ESG failures can materially affect operational continuity, project economics, refinancing capability, and long-term asset value. In many transactions, ESG diligence now carries the same strategic importance as financial, technical, and legal due diligence. Sustainable Financing Structures Are Rapidly Expanding India’s sustainable finance ecosystem is evolving quickly, particularly in infrastructure and energy sectors. The market is witnessing growing use of: Green bonds Sustainability-linked loans Transition finance instruments ESG-linked private credit Climate infrastructure funds Sustainability-linked project finance structures Green bonds, in particular, are increasingly financing: Renewable energy assets Sustainable transportation systems Green commercial buildings Climate adaptation infrastructure Energy transition projects As India’s sustainable debt market deepens, ESG-linked financing is expected to become increasingly mainstream across infrastructure sectors. ESG Performance Is Now Affecting the Cost of Capital A major shift occurring across global infrastructure finance is the relationship between ESG performance and financing economics. Projects with stronger ESG profiles increasingly benefit from: Lower borrowing costs Greater institutional participation Improved refinancing opportunities Stronger investor confidence Enhanced long-term valuation Conversely, projects facing governance concerns, climate vulnerabilities, or sustainability controversies may encounter: Higher financing risk premiums Reduced lender appetite Greater regulatory scrutiny Limited institutional participation For infrastructure sponsors, ESG is therefore becoming a financial issue as much as a compliance issue. Governance Has Become the Most Critical ESG Pillar While environmental sustainability often dominates public ESG discussions, governance is increasingly viewed by investors as the most critical infrastructure financing variable. Institutional investors now closely evaluate: Board oversight structures Internal compliance mechanisms Anti-corruption controls Transparency standards Related-party transaction oversight Enterprise risk management systems Weak governance can significantly increase exposure to: Fraud risk Litigation Regulatory action Operational instability Insolvency concerns Governance failures frequently have direct implications for valuation, lender confidence, and institutional participation. Climate Risk Is Reshaping Infrastructure Valuation Climate resilience has become a major investment consideration in long-term infrastructure projects. Investors increasingly assess: Flood exposure Heat stress vulnerability Water scarcity risks Coastal climate exposure Extreme weather resilience Long-term operational sustainability Climate adaptation planning is therefore becoming essential for infrastructure financing. This is particularly relevant for: Coastal infrastructure projects Energy-intensive operations Water-dependent industries Logistics and transportation networks Infrastructure assets incapable of demonstrating long-term climate resilience may face growing financing and operational challenges over time. ESG Regulation and Disclosure Expectations Are Expanding India’s ESG regulatory ecosystem continues evolving rapidly alongside global sustainability reporting standards. Infrastructure companies increasingly face expectations relating to: Sustainability reporting Climate disclosures Governance transparency ESG accountability mechanisms Responsible supply chain management Cross-border investors and international lenders often require compliance aligned with internationally recognised ESG frameworks and sustainability benchmarks. As global financing markets continue integrating climate and ESG considerations into investment mandates, Indian infrastructure developers are increasingly expected to align with international sustainability expectations. Labour, Community Impact, and Social Risk Are Under Greater Scrutiny Infrastructure projects frequently involve complex social impact considerations, including land acquisition, rehabilitation obligations, labour-intensive operations, and community engagement. As a result, investors and regulators increasingly examine: Worker safety standards Labour welfare compliance Local stakeholder engagement Rehabilitation and resettlement mechanisms Human rights considerations Social impact mitigation planning Social instability and community opposition can materially affect project implementation timelines, operational continuity, litigation exposure, and investor confidence. This makes proactive social risk management a critical part of modern infrastructure planning. ESG Disputes and Climate Litigation Are Increasing The next decade is expected to witness significant growth in ESG-related disputes and climate litigation involving infrastructure assets. Potential areas of dispute include: Environmental violations Greenwashing allegations Sustainability disclosure disputes Climate-related liability claims Community impact litigation Governance failures and compliance disputes Such disputes can materially affect financing structures, project approvals, institutional confidence, and reputational standing. Consequently, infrastructure stakeholders increasingly require sophisticated ESG governance and risk-management frameworks to mitigate long-term exposure. ESG Is Influencing Distressed Infrastructure Transactions An emerging trend in India’s distressed infrastructure market is the growing impact of ESG performance on asset recovery and refinancing prospects. Infrastructure assets with poor ESG profiles may increasingly face: Lower recovery valuations Reduced institutional acquisition appetite Higher operational risk perception Refinancing challenges In contrast, sustainable infrastructure assets with strong governance and climate resilience characteristics may attract premium valuations and stronger investor participation during restructuring or insolvency processes. Cross-Border Investors Are Raising ESG Expectations Global infrastructure capital is increasingly governed by international ESG investment frameworks. Cross-border lenders and institutional investors now routinely evaluate Indian projects against: Global sustainability benchmarks Climate-risk standards Responsible investment frameworks Governance transparency requirements ESG reporting expectations As India continues attracting large-scale foreign infrastructure investment, alignment with international ESG standards is becoming commercially essential rather than optional. Technology Infrastructure Is Entering the ESG Mainstream Technology-intensive infrastructure sectors are now firmly part of the ESG ecosystem. This includes: Data centres AI infrastructure Battery storage systems Smart logistics infrastructure Digital industrial ecosystems Investors increasingly examine these assets through the lens of: Energy efficiency Carbon intensity Technology lifecycle sustainability Supply chain transparency Resource consumption patterns The convergence of digital infrastructure growth and climate-focused investing is expected to remain a major trend through the remainder of the decade. The Future of ESG and Sustainable Infrastructure Financing in India India’s sustainable infrastructure market is expected to expand significantly over the coming years. Key trends likely to shape the sector include: Expansion of green bond markets Growth of sustainability-linked private credit Increased climate adaptation financing Greater ESG-linked infrastructure valuation models Stronger sustainability disclosure frameworks Rising institutional allocation toward climate infrastructure Most importantly, ESG is no longer a parallel consideration within infrastructure finance. It is becoming one of the defining foundations of infrastructure investment strategy itself. Conclusion ESG and sustainable financing are fundamentally transforming India’s infrastructure investment landscape. The combination of climate-transition policies, institutional capital inflows, renewable infrastructure growth, sustainability-linked financing structures, and evolving regulatory expectations is reshaping how infrastructure projects are financed, governed, and valued. For developers, lenders, investors, and infrastructure stakeholders, ESG integration now requires far more than symbolic sustainability commitments. It demands sophisticated legal planning, governance oversight, climate-risk management, operational sustainability frameworks, and long-term stakeholder alignment. Infrastructure projects that successfully integrate ESG principles are increasingly better positioned to secure institutional capital, maintain long-term bankability, and navigate the evolving regulatory and investment environment. As India builds the next generation of infrastructure, ESG and sustainable financing are expected to remain central to the country’s long-term economic and industrial transformation. By Aurelia Menezes, Partner, King Stubb and Kasiva https://ksandk.com/people/aurelia-menezes/

The Fourth Party at the Indian Tribunal Table

When two parties agree to arbitrate, they agree to place their dispute before a person, or a panel of persons, whom they trust to decide it. That is the whole of the bargain. Everything else, the seat, the rules, the language and the timetable, is machinery built around a single human act of judgment. It is worth holding that picture in mind, because a quiet change is taking place at the tribunal table. A new presence has pulled up a chair, and it is neither party, nor counsel, nor the arbitrator. Scholars of online dispute resolution gave it a name some years ago. Drawing on the work of Ethan Katsh and Janet Rifkin, they called technology the fourth party, sitting alongside the two disputants and the neutral and increasingly shaping what happens between them. The phrase was coined for the modest software of an earlier internet. It fits the arbitration room of 2026 far better than it fitted the one it was written for. The argument of this piece is narrow and important. So long as artificial intelligence in arbitration does the work of a clerk, it raises little that the existing law cannot handle. The moment it begins to shape the decision rather than merely speed up the typing, it stops behaving like a tool and starts behaving like a participant, and at that moment a set of Indian rules built entirely around human actors begins to misfire. The fourth party is not a metaphor to be admired. It is a problem to be located precisely, and Indian arbitration law, as it happens, gives us unusually sharp instruments for locating it. What the fourth party actually means The fourth party idea is best understood by contrast with the third. The third party in any dispute is the neutral, the mediator or the arbitrator, brought in to do what the two sides cannot do for themselves. The fourth party is the technology that increasingly assists, and sometimes supplants, that neutral. In its original and innocent form it was the platform that scheduled the mediation and held the documents. In its present form it is a system that can read the evidence, draft the analysis and propose the outcome. The point of the phrase is to make us notice that the technology is no longer merely infrastructure sitting in the background. It has moved into the foreground, close enough to the decision to deserve a name. It is essential to separate two modes of deployment of AI, because the entire analysis turns on the distinction. The first is clerical. A tool that transcribes a hearing, translates a document, organises an index or corrects the spelling in a draft does work that is real but not dispositive, and nobody sensible loses sleep over it. The second is dispositive, or close to it. A tool that weighs the evidence, assesses credibility, decides which line of authority to prefer or drafts the operative reasoning of an award is doing the very thing the parties appointed a human to do. The fourth party becomes a legal problem only in this second mode, and much of the confusion in the current debate comes from a failure to say which mode is in issue. The arbitrator we choose, and why we choose that one Indian law, like the law of most arbitral jurisdictions, treats the appointment of an arbitrator as personal. The choice is intuitu personae, made in respect of the particular individual and their particular qualities, their expertise, their judgment and their reputation for fairness. This is not sentiment. It is the reason the parties are bound by the award of a person whom they did not have to accept and could have rejected. Because the appointment is personal, the mandate that flows from it is non delegable. An arbitrator may take administrative help, but may not hand over the decision to someone else, because the someone else is not the person the parties chose. This principle already has a well known stress point that long predates artificial intelligence, namely the tribunal secretary. The international debate about how much a tribunal secretary may properly do, and at what point assistance shades into the secretary becoming a fourth arbitrator who improperly shares in the decision, is precisely the debate we are about to have again, only this time with a machine in the secretary’s chair. The lesson from that earlier debate applies directly. The line was never drawn at research, summarising or drafting, all of which a secretary may properly do. It was drawn at the decision itself, which must remain the arbitrator’s own. A language model is, for this purpose, a tireless and untrustworthy tribunal secretary, and the same line governs it. It may assist up to the point of decision. It may not make the decision, and it must not be permitted to make the decision in substance while a human merely ratifies the output. The Indian reality sharpens this point rather than softening it. A very large share of Indian arbitration is conducted by sole arbitrators, frequently retired judges, who carry heavy lists and lean, quite properly, on juniors and clerks to manage the paper. The institutional scrutiny that a tribunal secretary attracts in a large international reference is often simply absent in a domestic one. Into that environment now arrives a tool that will draft a confident analysis on request, at no marginal cost, at any hour of the night. The temptation to let it do more than it should is therefore greatest exactly where the supervision is thinnest. A rule that depends on busy sole arbitrators policing themselves, with no institutional check standing behind them, is a rule that will be honoured unevenly, and that is a reason to make the expectation explicit rather than to leave it to good intentions. A disclosure regime aimed at the wrong actor Here the fourth party exposes a genuine gap. Indian law polices the integrity of the decision maker through Section 12 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, read with the Fifth and Seventh Schedules introduced in 2015. An arbitrator must disclose any circumstances likely to give rise to justifiable doubts about independence or impartiality, and certain relationships render a person ineligible altogether. The entire apparatus is trained on the human arbitrator. It asks whether that person is independent, whether that person has a conflict, and whether that person can be trusted to hold the balance even. It asks nothing at all about the tool that may be shaping that person’s reasoning, because when the apparatus was designed there was no such tool. Consider how odd this sits. If a retired judge sitting as a sole arbitrator has a remote past association with one of the parties, the law requires disclosure and may require recusal. If the same arbitrator runs the entire dispute through a commercial artificial intelligence system whose training data, commercial alignments and systematic leanings are entirely unknown, the law currently requires nothing, because the system is treated as a pencil rather than as a participant. The disclosure regime is looking hard at the arbitrator and not at all at the fourth party that may be doing a meaningful part of the arbitrator’s thinking. That is no criticism of the draftsman of 2015, who could not have foreseen it. It is simply an identification of where the next reform must look. Equality of arms, and a recent warning from the Supreme Court The Indian courts have, if anything, been moving in the opposite direction to complacency about who controls the decision maker. In Central Organisation for Railway Electrification v. ECI-SPIC-SMO-MCML (JV) reported as 2024 INSC 857, a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court held in November 2024 that clauses allowing one party to unilaterally appoint a sole arbitrator, or to confine the other side’s choice to a panel curated by that one party, offend the principle of equality under the Act and the guarantee of equality before the law under Article 14 of the Constitution. The reasoning built on earlier decisions such as TRF Ltd. v. Energo Engineering Projects Ltd. reported as (2017) 8 SCC 377 and Perkins Eastman Architects DPC v. HSCC (India) Ltd. reported as (2020) 20 SCC 760, which established that a person ineligible to act as an arbitrator cannot validly appoint one either. The thread running through these decisions is a deep judicial insistence that neither side should hold a structural advantage in constituting the tribunal, because the tribunal is the heart of the bargain and must be equally the tribunal of both parties. Now place the fourth party against that thread. If the arbitral process leans heavily on an artificial intelligence system, and one party has access to a more powerful system than the other, or worse, if the tribunal itself relies on a system supplied or shaped by interests aligned with one side, the equality that the Supreme Court was so anxious to protect is quietly disturbed, not at the visible stage of appointment but at the invisible stage of reasoning. The Court closed the front door to a stacked tribunal. The fourth party can walk in through a window the Court was not yet looking at. Section 18 of the Act states the same value in the language of procedure, requiring that the parties be treated with equality and that each be given a full opportunity to present its case. A fourth party that one side can afford and the other cannot, or that systematically favours the kind of argument it was trained on, is a Section 18 problem wearing technological clothing. The provision is broad enough to reach it. What is missing, for now, is the habit of looking. The equality concern is not an abstract one either. Indian arbitration frequently pits a well resourced entity, a public sector undertaking, a bank or a large contractor, against an individual, a small supplier or a sub-contractor. The Supreme Court in the railway electrification case was alive to exactly this imbalance when it struck down panels curated by the stronger party. Now imagine that the stronger party deploys a sophisticated and expensive analytical system across the entire reference while the weaker party cannot, or that the tribunal itself adopts a tool whose defaults quietly reward the kind of voluminous, well organised submission that only the stronger party can produce. The inequality does not announce itself. It is laundered through the appearance of neutral efficiency. The lesson of the railway electrification judgment is that Indian law cares about structural advantage in the constitution and the conduct of the tribunal, and the fourth party is entirely capable of delivering such an advantage through the back door. The honest counter The strongest objection to all of this must be met head on, because it is a good one. Every arbitrator already uses tools. They use Manupatra and SCC Online, they use juniors and clerks, they use their own libraries and their own past awards. Nobody calls a legal database a fourth party or demands that it be disclosed and conflict checked. Why should a language model be any different? The answer is that the difference lies not in the tool being electronic but in the tool generating rather than retrieving. A database returns what a human asked for, and the human then evaluates it. A generative system proposes conclusions, frames the analysis and supplies reasoning that a tired or busy human may adopt with less scrutiny than they would give a junior, precisely because the output reads as finished and confident. The risk is not the technology in itself. It is the seductive completeness of the output and the human tendency to defer to it. That is what makes the generative tool a candidate for participant status when the database never was. This is not armchair psychology. The tendency to over rely on automated output, sometimes called automation bias, is well documented, and it is strongest under precisely the conditions in which arbitrators work, namely time pressure, large volumes of material and a confident, fluent answer that arrives already formatted. A junior who hands up a weak note invites correction, because the human relationship makes scrutiny natural. A machine that hands up a polished one invites adoption, because there is no relationship to mediate the scrutiny and the polish itself does the persuading. The danger is therefore not that arbitrators are careless. It is that the tool is built to be believed, and any rule that ignores this human factor is regulating the wrong thing. There is a fair reply to my own argument too, and intellectual honesty requires me to state it. One might say that all of this collapses into the simple and existing rule that the arbitrator must apply their own mind, so that no new concept of a fourth party is needed at all. I have some sympathy with that view, and in a sense the fourth party is only a vivid way of naming a failure of the old duty. But the vividness earns its keep. Naming the fourth party forces the system to ask a question it would otherwise skip, which is not merely whether the arbitrator applied their mind, but to what, and shaped by what, that mind was applied. The old duty asks about the arbitrator. The fourth party asks about the influence upon the arbitrator, and that is the question the present moment requires. Where the line falls So where does the line fall in practice? It falls; at influence over the dispositive reasoning. Below that line, in the clerical and the merely assistive, the fourth party is a tool, needs no special treatment, and the existing law is sufficient. At or above that line, where the system shapes the assessment of evidence, the choice of authority or the operative reasoning of the award, three things should follow. The arbitrator should disclose the use, because the parties are entitled to know what is in the room. The arbitrator must independently own every step of the reasoning, so that the award is genuinely their own and not a ratified output. And the institutions, when they next revise their rules, should extend the logic of Section 12 and the spirit of the railway electrification judgment to ask not only whether the human decision maker is independent, but whether the fourth party at the table is independent too. None of this requires heroic drafting. An institution could achieve most of it with a single default provision: that any use of a generative artificial intelligence tool by the tribunal which bears on the assessment of evidence or the reasoning of the award must be disclosed to the parties, that the tribunal remains personally responsible for every finding, and that any tool so used must meet stated standards of confidentiality and security. Parties who wished to contract out of the default could do so, by agreement, as party autonomy permits. Parties who said nothing would receive a sensible rule rather than a vacuum. That is precisely how arbitral institutions have introduced every other procedural innovation of the last two decades, from emergency arbitrators to expedited timelines, and there is no good reason the fourth party should be handled any differently. The fourth party is not a reason to keep artificial intelligence out of arbitration. It is a reason to keep it in its seat. Indian law has spent the last decade being unusually careful about who gets to constitute and influence a tribunal, and that care is exactly the right instinct to bring to this question. The arbitrator whom the parties chose must remain the one who decides. The fourth party may pull up a chair, take notes, hand up a draft and make itself useful in a hundred ways. What it may never do is pick up the pen that the parties placed, deliberately and personally, in a human hand. By Navod Prasannan,  Advocate and Partner, King Stubb & Kasiva https://ksandk.com/people/navod-prasannan/

Insolvency and Stressed Infrastructure Assets in India: Opportunities, Risks and Resolution Trends in 2026

India’s infrastructure story has long been associated with ambition, mega highways, renewable energy parks, airports, logistics corridors, smart cities, data centres and urban transformation projects. Over the last two decades, billions of dollars have flowed into the sector from banks, institutional lenders, sovereign wealth funds, infrastructure funds and global investors eager to participate in India’s growth trajectory. Yet beneath this expansion lies a parallel reality: a rising volume of stressed infrastructure assets, financially distressed projects and complex insolvency-driven restructurings. As India enters 2026, the market for distressed infrastructure acquisitions has evolved into one of the country’s most sophisticated investment and restructuring ecosystems. Today, infrastructure insolvency is no longer viewed merely as a lender recovery mechanism. It has become a strategic route for acquiring operational assets, consolidating market positions and unlocking long-term yield opportunities across sectors such as renewable energy, roads, airports, logistics, warehousing and digital infrastructure. The growing maturity of India’s insolvency regime under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC”) has fundamentally reshaped how infrastructure distress is managed. Investors are increasingly evaluating distressed infrastructure platforms in India not simply for recovery value, but for future scalability, ESG alignment, operational resilience and long-term cashflow generation. At the same time, infrastructure insolvencies remain among the most legally and operationally complex transactions in the market. Unlike ordinary corporate distress, infrastructure restructuring involves concession agreements, public utility obligations, regulatory approvals, operational continuity concerns, multi-layered financing structures and cross-border investment considerations. This article examines the evolving legal and commercial landscape governing stressed infrastructure assets in India and explores the major insolvency, restructuring and investment trends shaping the sector in 2026. Why Infrastructure Assets Become Financially Distressed Infrastructure projects are uniquely vulnerable to financial stress because they are capital intensive, highly leveraged and dependent on long-term regulatory and operational stability. Even relatively minor disruptions can significantly affect project cashflows, debt servicing capability and investor confidence. In many large projects, revenues begin years after substantial capital expenditure has already been incurred. Delays in land acquisition, environmental approvals, construction timelines or regulatory clearances can therefore create immediate pressure on financing structures. Some of the most common causes of infrastructure distress in India include: Land acquisition and rehabilitation delays Construction overruns and EPC disputes Tariff and regulatory conflicts Counterparty payment defaults Aggressive leverage structures Demand volatility and traffic shortfalls Technology underperformance Foreign exchange exposure Financing mismatches and refinancing constraints As infrastructure financing structures become more sophisticated, stress events increasingly involve multiple stakeholders, layered security structures and competing recovery expectations. How the IBC Transformed Infrastructure Resolution in India Before the introduction of the IBC, distressed infrastructure projects often remained trapped in prolonged litigation, fragmented restructuring frameworks and inefficient enforcement proceedings. Recovery timelines were uncertain, project values deteriorated rapidly and lenders faced significant difficulties in monetising distressed assets. The IBC fundamentally altered this landscape by introducing a structured, creditor-driven and time-bound insolvency framework. More importantly, it transformed distressed infrastructure from a purely recovery-oriented process into a viable investment and acquisition opportunity. For infrastructure investors, the IBC has improved: Transparency in distressed asset resolution Institutional creditor coordination Recovery discipline among borrowers Access to operational infrastructure assets Market-driven restructuring outcomes Platform consolidation opportunities In sectors such as renewable energy and roads, insolvency proceedings are increasingly being used as strategic entry routes by institutional investors seeking scalable infrastructure portfolios in India. Why Distressed Infrastructure Assets Are Attracting Institutional Capital One of the defining trends of 2026 is the growing participation of sovereign wealth funds, infrastructure investment platforms, private credit funds and global institutional investors in distressed infrastructure acquisitions in India. Operational infrastructure assets often continue to possess substantial long-term value despite sponsor-level distress. For sophisticated investors, financial distress may create opportunities to acquire strategically important assets at discounted valuations while retaining access to long-duration cashflows. This is particularly attractive in sectors where underlying demand remains structurally strong, including: Renewable energy projects Roads and highways Warehousing and logistics parks Urban infrastructure platforms Digital infrastructure and data centres Transmission and utility assets Infrastructure is increasingly being viewed as a long-term yield-generating asset class capable of delivering stable and predictable returns over extended investment horizons. Renewable Energy Insolvencies and Market Consolidation Renewable energy has emerged as one of the most active sectors for distressed infrastructure acquisitions in India. Solar and wind platforms continue attracting strong investor interest despite operational and regulatory challenges affecting several projects. Common causes of stress in renewable projects include: Delayed payments under power purchase agreements (PPAs) Curtailment disputes Aggressive debt financing Module performance issues Regulatory uncertainty Transmission connectivity challenges Despite these risks, distressed renewable energy assets remain highly attractive because they are often supported by long-term PPAs, government-backed procurement frameworks and strong ESG investment demand. Large renewable energy developers and infrastructure funds are increasingly using insolvency-led acquisitions as a route for portfolio expansion and market consolidation. The result is a rapidly evolving market for distressed renewable energy asset acquisition in India. Roads and Highway Projects: Continuing Stress Despite Structural Reforms Road and highway projects historically accounted for a major share of infrastructure stress in India. Earlier BOT-based concession models often relied on aggressive traffic projections and highly leveraged financing structures that became difficult to sustain. Although the transition toward Hybrid Annuity Models (HAM) and EPC-based structures has reduced certain categories of project risk, financial stress remains a continuing concern in several operational projects. Key stress triggers continue to include: Traffic and revenue underperformance Construction disputes Delayed annuity payments Land acquisition issues Refinancing pressure Concession-related disputes For lenders and investors, road sector insolvencies require careful evaluation of concession rights, termination compensation frameworks and operational continuity obligations. Airport and Aviation Infrastructure Insolvencies Airport restructuring transactions remain exceptionally sensitive because airports are strategically important national infrastructure assets subject to extensive regulatory oversight. Unlike conventional corporate insolvencies, airport distress scenarios frequently involve: Passenger service continuity concerns Government oversight obligations National security considerations Multi-party concession arrangements Regulatory transfer approvals Operational dependency risks Successful airport insolvency resolution in India requires coordination among lenders, regulators, concessioning authorities, operators and infrastructure investors. Operational continuity remains central to preserving both enterprise value and public confidence. Digital Infrastructure and Data Centre Restructuring India’s rapidly expanding digital economy is creating significant investment activity in data centres and digital infrastructure. However, as the sector matures, digital infrastructure restructuring and distress scenarios are expected to become increasingly relevant. Potential stress factors may include: Technology obsolescence High capital expenditure burdens Energy cost volatility Customer concentration risks Operational disruption exposure Cybersecurity liabilities Despite these concerns, digital infrastructure remains highly attractive to investors because of AI-driven demand growth, cloud expansion and long-term digital adoption trends. Data centres are increasingly being treated as infrastructure-like assets with stable recurring revenue characteristics. Concession Agreements and Insolvency Risks One of the most critical legal issues in infrastructure insolvency relates to concession agreements, licences and regulatory approvals. Many infrastructure projects derive their economic value directly from government concessions or regulated operating rights. Accordingly, insolvency proceedings often raise complex questions such as: Whether concession rights survive insolvency Whether approvals can be transferred to new investors Whether lenders can exercise substitution rights Whether termination risks arise during restructuring For lenders, direct agreements and step-in rights have become essential risk mitigation tools. These mechanisms help preserve project continuity while facilitating restructuring or sponsor substitution during distress. In heavily regulated sectors, the enforceability and practical implementation of these protections often become central to successful resolution outcomes. Security Enforcement Challenges in Infrastructure Projects Infrastructure financing structures typically involve extensive security packages including: Mortgage over project assets Assignment of receivables Charge over project accounts Assignment of concession rights Pledge over project company shares However, enforcement in infrastructure projects is rarely straightforward. Public utility obligations, regulatory approvals, concession restrictions and insolvency moratoriums frequently complicate pure enforcement strategies. As a result, consensual restructuring and resolution planning are often commercially more viable than aggressive enforcement proceedings. Why Operational Continuity Matters During Infrastructure Insolvency Unlike ordinary commercial businesses, infrastructure assets frequently provide essential public services. Power generation projects, toll roads, airports and urban utility assets cannot simply cease operations during insolvency proceedings without broader economic and public consequences. Operational disruption may materially affect: Public service delivery Regulatory compliance Asset valuation Revenue stability Recovery outcomes for creditors For this reason, infrastructure insolvency strategies increasingly prioritise stabilisation measures, interim funding arrangements and business continuity planning. Investors and resolution applicants are expected to demonstrate operational capability alongside financial strength. The Growing Role of Infrastructure Funds and Private Credit Alternative capital providers are becoming increasingly influential in India’s infrastructure restructuring market. Private credit funds, distressed asset investors and infrastructure investment platforms are actively participating in: Rescue financing transactions Stressed infrastructure acquisitions Refinancing of operational assets Resolution plan funding Sponsor replacement structures Traditional banks often face provisioning pressure, sectoral exposure limits and regulatory constraints when dealing with stressed infrastructure projects. Alternative capital providers are therefore filling a critical financing gap within the distressed infrastructure ecosystem. This trend is expected to accelerate further in 2026 as institutional investors seek exposure to operational infrastructure assets with long-term yield potential. RBI Project Finance Directions 2025 and Early Stress Recognition The RBI Project Finance Directions, 2025 are expected to significantly influence future infrastructure stress and restructuring trends in India. The framework places greater emphasis on project monitoring, milestone-linked disbursements and early identification of implementation risks. The regulatory focus on: Delay recognition Project monitoring discipline Cost overrun controls Enhanced lender oversight may improve project governance and financing discipline across the sector. At the same time, stricter monitoring mechanisms may also accelerate stress recognition and trigger restructuring discussions much earlier in the project lifecycle. This could reshape how lenders and sponsors approach infrastructure risk management in India. Inter-Creditor Complexity in Large Infrastructure Insolvencies Modern infrastructure projects frequently involve consortium financing structures, offshore lenders, institutional investors, bondholders and multilayered security arrangements. As a result, infrastructure insolvencies often become highly complex inter-creditor exercises involving competing recovery priorities and divergent restructuring expectations. Different creditor groups may hold: Different security rights Different enforcement strategies Different recovery assumptions Different regulatory considerations Successful resolution strategies therefore depend heavily on stakeholder coordination, commercial negotiation and carefully structured inter-creditor arrangements. Cross-Border Infrastructure Distress and Foreign Investment Issues Many infrastructure projects in India involve foreign investment, offshore financing arrangements and international dispute resolution frameworks. Distress scenarios can therefore trigger complex cross-border legal issues involving: FEMA compliance Offshore enforcement rights Bilateral investment treaty protections Multi-jurisdictional restructuring International arbitration proceedings For global investors evaluating distressed infrastructure opportunities in India, legal due diligence must extend beyond domestic insolvency considerations and address broader cross-border enforcement and regulatory risks. ESG Considerations in Distressed Infrastructure Transactions Environmental, social and governance (ESG) considerations are increasingly influencing distressed infrastructure investment decisions. Institutional investors are now evaluating sustainability exposure and governance risk alongside traditional financial metrics. Key ESG considerations frequently include: Environmental liabilities Sustainability compliance Community impact exposure Governance failures Carbon transition risk Climate resilience considerations Assets with strong ESG alignment often attract better refinancing opportunities, enhanced institutional interest and stronger long-term valuations. Renewable and sustainable infrastructure platforms remain particularly attractive within this evolving investment landscape. Litigation, Arbitration and Contingent Liability Risks Infrastructure insolvencies rarely exist in isolation. Distressed projects are frequently accompanied by ongoing disputes involving EPC contractors, concessioning authorities, regulators and financing counterparties. Resolution applicants must therefore carefully evaluate: Pending arbitration claims Regulatory proceedings Enforcement litigation Contingent liabilities Contractual termination risks Insurance-related disputes Effective dispute management has become a critical component of infrastructure restructuring and distressed asset acquisition strategy in India. Key Risks in Distressed Infrastructure Investing Despite strong acquisition opportunities, distressed infrastructure investments continue to involve substantial legal, operational and regulatory risk. Some of the most significant risks include: Regulatory uncertainty Concession instability Technology failures Environmental liabilities Legacy litigation exposure Political and policy risk Operational disruption Enforcement complexity Accordingly, comprehensive legal, technical, financial and regulatory due diligence remains indispensable in any infrastructure distress transaction. The Future of Infrastructure Restructuring in India India’s stressed infrastructure market is expected to become increasingly sophisticated over the next several years. Distressed infrastructure is now viewed as strategic investment category within India’s broader infrastructure financing ecosystem. Key trends likely to shape the market in 2026 and beyond include: Greater infrastructure platform consolidation Increased participation by institutional capital Expansion of digital infrastructure restructuring ESG-linked refinancing models Growth of private credit and rescue financing More sophisticated turnaround and restructuring strategies As India continues expanding its infrastructure footprint, financial stress and restructuring activity will remain an inevitable part of the sector’s evolution. The key differentiator will increasingly lie in how effectively stakeholders manage operational continuity, regulatory complexity, dispute exposure and long-term value creation. Conclusion Infrastructure insolvency and distressed asset restructuring have become central components of India’s infrastructure and project finance ecosystem. The combination of rapid infrastructure growth, financing sophistication, institutional investor participation and regulatory complexity continues to create both significant risk and substantial acquisition opportunity. At the same time, infrastructure distress transactions require far more than conventional insolvency expertise. Successful outcomes increasingly depend on multidisciplinary execution involving restructuring strategy, regulatory planning, operational continuity management, dispute resolution, financing coordination and ESG assessment. For lenders, investors, developers and infrastructure funds, the Indian distressed infrastructure market in 2026 represents not merely a recovery environment, but a rapidly evolving platform for long-term strategic investment and consolidation. By Atul N. Menon, Partner – King Stubb and Kasiva https://ksandk.com/people/atul-n-menon/  

Green Hydrogen Projects in India: Financing, Regulation and Infrastructure Challenges Shaping the Sector in 2026

India’s green hydrogen sector is no longer being discussed as a futuristic climate ambition. It is rapidly becoming one of the most commercially significant infrastructure and energy transition opportunities in the country. As governments and industries worldwide intensify decarbonisation efforts, green hydrogen is emerging as a strategic solution for sectors where electrification alone cannot achieve net-zero objectives. From steel manufacturing and fertilisers to shipping, refining and heavy industrial operations, businesses are increasingly exploring hydrogen-based energy systems to reduce carbon intensity while maintaining industrial scale and operational efficiency. For India, the opportunity is larger than domestic decarbonisation. The country is positioning itself as a future global hub for green hydrogen production, export-oriented hydrogen infrastructure and renewable-powered industrial manufacturing. This transition is creating substantial opportunities for infrastructure developers, renewable energy companies, sovereign wealth funds, institutional investors, lenders and multinational industrial groups. At the same time, green hydrogen projects in India are introducing a new generation of legal, regulatory and financing complexities that differ significantly from conventional infrastructure or renewable energy projects. Unlike mature sectors with established project finance models and predictable operational benchmarks, green hydrogen projects continue to evolve technologically, commercially and regulatorily. The success of these projects increasingly depends on sophisticated structuring, integrated renewable energy strategies, ESG compliance, cross-border financing capability and carefully negotiated risk allocation mechanisms. India’s National Green Hydrogen Mission and the Rise of a Hydrogen Economy India’s policy framework has evolved rapidly through the National Green Hydrogen Mission, which seeks to establish the country as a leading producer and exporter of green hydrogen and hydrogen derivatives. The policy ecosystem surrounding the sector now extends beyond simple renewable energy incentives and includes electrolyser manufacturing support, renewable energy integration mechanisms, infrastructure facilitation measures and industrial decarbonisation initiatives. The broader objective is not merely energy diversification. India’s hydrogen strategy is tied directly to long-term energy security, reduced fossil fuel dependence, export competitiveness and industrial transformation. Policymakers increasingly view green hydrogen as a strategic industrial input capable of reshaping sectors that have historically remained carbon-intensive and difficult to transition. This evolving framework is also creating a new category of long-term infrastructure assets. Large-scale hydrogen projects are expected to involve integrated renewable power generation, electrolysis facilities, storage infrastructure, transportation systems, export terminals and industrial offtake arrangements. As a result, green hydrogen infrastructure in India is beginning to resemble an ecosystem-driven investment model rather than a standalone energy project. Why Global Investors Are Aggressively Entering India’s Green Hydrogen Market Institutional capital is increasingly flowing toward green hydrogen projects because investors view the sector as a long-duration energy transition opportunity with strong alignment to ESG and sustainability mandates. Sovereign wealth funds, pension funds, climate-focused investment platforms, export credit agencies and multilateral financial institutions are actively evaluating hydrogen infrastructure investments in India due to several structural advantages: India’s rapidly expanding renewable energy capacity Competitive solar and wind power costs Industrial-scale domestic demand potential Export-oriented infrastructure opportunities Government-backed policy support Long-term carbon reduction commitments For many investors, the sector also presents a significant first-mover advantage. Businesses capable of securing renewable energy integration, industrial offtake arrangements and strategic port connectivity at an early stage may become dominant participants in India’s future hydrogen economy. However, unlike traditional infrastructure sectors where revenue visibility and operational performance are relatively established, hydrogen projects remain highly sensitive to policy evolution, technology advancement and future demand certainty. This continues to influence financing appetite and investment structuring strategies. Renewable Energy Integration Is the Foundation of Hydrogen Project Viability One of the most critical aspects of green hydrogen project development is access to low-cost renewable energy. Electricity pricing directly affects hydrogen production economics, making renewable integration one of the most important determinants of project bankability. Developers are therefore increasingly pursuing integrated renewable infrastructure models involving: Captive renewable energy projects Hybrid solar and wind arrangements Energy storage-backed supply systems Dedicated renewable transmission infrastructure Long-term renewable power procurement strategies This creates significant legal and regulatory overlap between renewable energy law, power sector regulation and hydrogen infrastructure development. From a financing perspective, lenders are placing substantial emphasis on long-term energy cost certainty, operational uptime and renewable supply reliability. Hydrogen projects that lack stable renewable integration may face material financing constraints due to concerns surrounding production economics and operational continuity. Electrolyser Manufacturing and Technology Risk Remain Central Concerns Electrolysers form the core technological infrastructure of hydrogen production systems. India is actively encouraging domestic electrolyser manufacturing and supply chain localisation through incentive-driven policy measures designed to reduce import dependence and build domestic industrial capability. Despite strong policy support, technology risk continues to remain one of the most significant challenges in green hydrogen project financing. Investors and lenders continue to evaluate concerns involving: Technology obsolescence Equipment degradation risk Efficiency uncertainty Vendor reliability Performance guarantees Long-term maintenance capability Unlike conventional renewable energy assets that benefit from relatively mature technologies and predictable operational models, hydrogen infrastructure continues to evolve rapidly. This creates substantial diligence requirements for project finance participants, particularly where projects rely on emerging electrolyser technologies or large-scale industrial deployment models. Technology-related contractual protections are therefore becoming increasingly important in EPC agreements, supply contracts, insurance frameworks and financing documentation. Why Financing Green Hydrogen Projects Is More Complex Than Traditional Infrastructure Finance Green hydrogen projects are fundamentally different from conventional infrastructure financing transactions because the sector lacks fully mature commercial benchmarks. Traditional project finance structures typically rely on predictable cash flows, established operational histories and stable demand patterns. Hydrogen projects, however, often involve evolving technologies, uncertain demand trajectories and regulatory frameworks that continue to develop. As a result, financing structures for hydrogen infrastructure in India increasingly involve: SPV-based project finance models Blended financing structures Strategic industrial partnerships Sustainability-linked financing arrangements Cross-border investment platforms Government-supported viability mechanisms Large hydrogen developments may simultaneously incorporate renewable generation assets, electrolysis infrastructure, industrial integration facilities, storage systems and export logistics networks. This significantly increases structuring complexity and risk allocation requirements. Lenders continue to focus heavily on several key bankability concerns: Long-term offtake certainty Industrial demand visibility Creditworthiness of purchasers Regulatory stability Technology performance assurance Carbon market evolution Export competitiveness Until the sector achieves greater commercial maturity, many projects are likely to remain dependent on strategic partnerships, policy support and innovative financing structures. Offtake Agreements Will Shape Hydrogen Project Bankability Long-term offtake arrangements are expected to become one of the most important drivers of hydrogen project financing in India. Industrial demand is likely to emerge first from sectors already dependent on hydrogen or carbon-intensive industrial processes, including: Fertiliser manufacturing Refineries Steel production Industrial energy users Heavy manufacturing operations For lenders, revenue certainty will increasingly depend on the quality and enforceability of long-term supply arrangements. Hydrogen projects with credible industrial counterparties and stable pricing mechanisms are expected to attract stronger financing interest compared to projects dependent solely on speculative future export demand. As export markets mature, international hydrogen supply agreements and cross-border commercial frameworks are also likely to become increasingly significant. ESG, Water Sourcing and Environmental Regulation Are Becoming Critical Investment Factors Although green hydrogen is promoted as a low-carbon fuel solution, the sector remains highly sensitive from an environmental and ESG perspective. Hydrogen production requires substantial water resources, creating growing scrutiny around: Water sourcing rights Environmental sustainability Community impact Land usage patterns Biodiversity implications Renewable energy sourcing integrity Institutional investors and multilateral lenders are increasingly evaluating hydrogen projects through broader ESG compliance frameworks rather than merely assessing carbon reduction potential. Projects located in water-stressed regions or areas involving significant land acquisition challenges may face heightened regulatory scrutiny, financing challenges and stakeholder opposition. Consequently, ESG preparedness is no longer a secondary compliance exercise. It is becoming central to project finance viability, institutional investment participation and long-term operational sustainability. Land Acquisition, Port Connectivity and Industrial Infrastructure Will Determine Strategic Advantage Green hydrogen projects are infrastructure-intensive developments that require extensive industrial integration. Developers are increasingly prioritising project locations offering: Access to low-cost renewable energy Industrial demand clusters Port infrastructure proximity Export logistics capability Transmission connectivity Industrial zoning compatibility India’s future hydrogen ecosystem is expected to evolve around integrated industrial corridors and port-linked hydrogen hubs capable of supporting both domestic industrial consumption and export-oriented production. This creates substantial opportunities in infrastructure development involving: Hydrogen storage systems Port terminals Transportation infrastructure Pipeline networks Renewable energy corridors Industrial processing facilities However, land acquisition, environmental approvals and infrastructure connectivity continue to remain significant implementation challenges. Cross-Border Financing and FEMA Structuring Are Becoming Increasingly Important International participation in India’s hydrogen sector is accelerating rapidly. Sovereign wealth funds, strategic industrial groups, infrastructure investors, export credit agencies and climate finance institutions are increasingly exploring Indian hydrogen investments. This creates substantial legal and regulatory considerations involving: FEMA compliance External Commercial Borrowing (ECB) regulations Offshore investment structuring Tax optimisation Repatriation mechanisms Cross-border security structures Large-scale hydrogen infrastructure platforms may involve complex multi-jurisdictional financing arrangements combining domestic lending, offshore debt, sustainability-linked financing and strategic equity participation. As global hydrogen markets evolve, international regulatory alignment and cross-border contractual frameworks are also expected to become increasingly important for export-oriented projects. Carbon Markets, Green Bonds and Sustainability Financing Could Transform Project Economics Green hydrogen projects are closely connected to the broader evolution of carbon markets and ESG-driven capital allocation. Future project economics may increasingly benefit from: Carbon credit monetisation Sustainability-linked loans Green bonds Climate finance frameworks Transition finance mechanisms ESG-focused institutional investment Over time, these mechanisms could materially improve financing viability by lowering capital costs and strengthening investor participation. However, carbon market regulation and sustainability disclosure standards continue to evolve globally. Businesses participating in hydrogen infrastructure projects must therefore remain prepared for increasingly sophisticated compliance and reporting obligations. Safety Regulation and Hydrogen Infrastructure Standards Will Continue Evolving Hydrogen infrastructure involves complex operational and industrial safety considerations that remain comparatively underdeveloped from a regulatory perspective. Projects must currently navigate multiple overlapping compliance frameworks involving: Industrial safety regulations Hazardous materials handling Environmental approvals Transportation compliance Operational standards Infrastructure licensing requirements As India’s hydrogen economy expands, regulatory frameworks are expected to become increasingly specialised and technically sophisticated. Insurance markets are also likely to evolve significantly to address sector-specific risks involving equipment malfunction, industrial accidents, supply chain disruption, environmental liability and operational failure. The Future of Green Hydrogen Infrastructure in India India’s green hydrogen ecosystem is entering a decisive growth phase. Over the next decade, the sector is expected to witness the emergence of: Integrated renewable-hydrogen infrastructure platforms Export-oriented hydrogen hubs Port-linked hydrogen ecosystems Industrial decarbonisation clusters Hydrogen transportation infrastructure ESG-driven institutional financing models Carbon market-linked hydrogen projects The sector’s long-term trajectory will likely depend on the successful integration of renewable energy, industrial demand creation, financing innovation and regulatory certainty. For businesses, investors and lenders, green hydrogen is no longer merely an energy sector opportunity. It is becoming a large-scale industrial infrastructure transformation with implications across manufacturing, logistics, exports, climate finance and international trade. Conclusion Green hydrogen is expected to become one of the defining pillars of India’s long-term energy transition and industrial decarbonisation strategy. Strong policy support, growing renewable energy capacity, increasing ESG-focused investment and rising global demand for low-carbon industrial solutions are collectively accelerating the sector’s growth. At the same time, green hydrogen projects involve highly sophisticated legal, commercial, operational and financing considerations that require multidisciplinary planning and carefully structured execution. Successful projects will increasingly depend on: Integrated renewable energy strategies Technology diligence and risk allocation ESG and sustainability preparedness Long-term industrial offtake certainty Cross-border financing capability Regulatory compliance and infrastructure planning As India moves toward a lower-carbon economy, businesses participating in green hydrogen infrastructure development will need to navigate an evolving legal and commercial landscape that combines energy transition policy with large-scale industrial infrastructure financing. By Surbhi Kapoor, Partner, King Stubb and Kasiva https://ksandk.com/people/surbhi-kapoor/

CONSENT AS THE CORNERSTONE OF ARBITRATION: ANALYSING SECTION 7 THROUGH NAGREEKA AND GLENCORE

The validity of an arbitration agreement under Section 7 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Act) ultimately boils down to consent. At its core, an arbitration clause is nothing more than a contractual promise by the parties to resolve their disputes outside the regular court system. But consent isn’t always straightforward. Sometimes parties sign a contract containing a clause that is too weak or tentative to create any real obligation to arbitrate. In other situations, a party may perform extensively under a contract it never signed, leaving the question open whether it is bound by the arbitration clause contained in it. These are two quite different problems, and both come up fairly often in practice.   The Hon’ble Supreme Court has addressed these two pertinent issues in two distinct judgments which together mark the outer scope of what Section 7 of the Act requires. In Nagreeka Indcon Products Pvt. Ltd. v. Cargocare Logistics (India) Pvt. Ltd. (2026 INSC 384) (Nagreeka), the Court held that a clause providing that disputes “can” be settled by arbitration does not create a binding arbitration agreement. On the other hand, in Glencore International AG v. Shree Ganesh Metals and Another (2025 INSC 1036) (Glencore), the Court ruled that an unsigned but clearly mandatory arbitration clause is enforceable if the non-signing party’s conduct shows unequivocal acceptance of the contract. When these two decisions are read together, a clear principle on the scope of Section 7 is established that conduct can fill the gap left by an unsigned agreement, but it cannot fix a clause that, by its own wording, does not create a binding obligation on the parties. I. WHEN THE CLAUSE ITSELF IS NOT ENOUGH: NAGREEKA While Section 7 of the Act requires an arbitration agreement to be in writing, it does not specify what language is sufficient to create one. That question has been settled by a consistent line of decisions of the Supreme Court. The Court had earlier identified the essential attributes of a valid arbitration agreement in K.K. Modi v. K.N. Modi (1998) 3 SCC 573), which required, inter alia, that the agreement contemplate a binding decision by the tribunal deriving from the consent of the parties, and that the agreement to refer disputes to the tribunal be intended to be enforceable in law. More recently, the Supreme Court in Jagdish Chander v. Ramesh Chander ((2007) 5 SCC 719) (Jagdish Chander), has authoritatively held that the words of an arbitration clause must disclose a determination and obligation to go to arbitration, not merely the possibility of doing so. A clause that provides that parties "can, if they so desire" refer disputes to arbitration is not an arbitration agreement; it is an agreement to consider entering into one, contingent on fresh consent when a dispute actually arises. It has also made clear that mere use of the word "arbitration" or "arbitrator" will not make a clause a valid arbitration agreement if it requires or contemplates fresh consent at the time of a dispute. The decision in Nagreeka is a direct application of this principle laid down by the Supreme Court in Jagdish Chander. The dispute arose from a bill of lading wherein the Clause 25 provided that differences between the parties "can be settled by arbitration in India or a place mutually agreed with each party appointing an arbitrator." Subsequent thereto, when a payment dispute arose, the appellant invoked this clause and sought appointment of an arbitrator under Section 11 of the Act. when a dispute with respect to payments arose and the appellant sought appointment of an arbitrator under Section 11 of the Act. The respondent, however, refused to participate in arbitration, contending that the clause imposed no binding obligation to do so. Both the Bombay High Court and the Supreme Court agreed. The Bombay High Court dismissed the Section 11 application, and the Supreme Court upheld that dismissal. The Court's reasoning was based on a careful reading of the word "can". Examining its ordinary dictionary meaning across multiple sources, the Court held that "can" denotes capacity or factual possibility, not obligation. It contrasted the word "can" with "shall," which signals a mandate, and noted that even "may" carries a stronger obligatory weight in judicial interpretation than "can" does. The Court then applied this understanding to Clause 25 and held that the clause indicated merely the future possibility of referring disputes to arbitration. For disputes to actually be settled by arbitration, a further agreement between the parties would be required, and such an agreement could only come into existence if both parties consented to it. Since the respondent had refused to refer the matter to arbitration, no such further agreement existed. The Court also dealt with several arguments advanced by the Appellants. The first argument was that the heading of the clause read "Arbitration," which the Appellant argued demonstrated the parties' intention. The Court rejected this, holding that a heading cannot supply a mandatory obligation that the body of the clause does not contain. The second argument was that the Section 11 stage requires only a prima facie examination of whether an arbitration agreement exists, and that doubts should be resolved in favour of referral. The Court clearly dealt with this argument by placing reliance on SBI General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Krish Spg. ((2024) 12 SCC 1), it acknowledged this limitation but held that it did not assist the appellant, because the absence of a binding arbitration clause was "manifestly and ex facie certain" on the face of Clause 25 itself. The prima facie threshold does not require courts to refer parties to arbitration where the non-existence of the arbitration agreement is plain on the document. This reading aligns with the caution expressed in Goqii Technologies (P) Ltd. v. Sokrati Technologies (P) Ltd. ((2025) 2 SCC 192), that the limited jurisdiction of referral courts must not be misused to compel participation in arbitration on the basis of non-existent agreements. The significance of Nagreeka: Nagreeka adds to the existing line of judgments in two respects. First, it extends the mandatory obligation analysis to the word "can," in the arbitration context. The Court's close textual analysis of ordinary dictionary usage and its comparison with "shall" and "may" provides a useful linguistic framework for evaluating dispute resolution clauses going forward. Second, the decision confirms that no combination of contextual factors will cure a fundamentally permissive clause. The presence of the word "Arbitration" as a heading, the commercial context of the transaction, and the general judicial preference for referring commercial disputes to arbitration were all considered and all found insufficient. The clause itself is dispositive. What makes Nagreeka useful for practitioners is its specificity. A clause using "can" or "may" will ordinarily be treated as permissive and, absent a clear contextual correction, will not constitute a valid arbitration agreement. II. WHEN THE SIGNATURE IS MISSING BUT THE CONSENT IS NOT: GLENCORE The second problem is structurally the inverse of the first. Where Nagreeka concerned a clause whose language was deficient, Glencore concerned a clause whose language was unambiguously mandatory but which had not been signed by one of the parties. The question was whether extensive performance under the contract could supply the missing assent. Section 7(3) of the Act requires an arbitration agreement to be in writing. It does not specifically require a signature. Moreover, Section 7(4)(b) of the Act expressly provides that an exchange of communications providing a record of the agreement is sufficient. This much has been settled since Jugal Kishore Rameshwardas v. Goolbai Hormusji (AIR 1955 SC 812), which established that formal execution is not a prerequisite for a valid arbitration agreement. The essential ingredients of a valid arbitration agreement as identified in Bihar State Mineral Development Corporation v. Encon Builders (I) (P) Ltd. ((2003) 7 SCC 418) include, relevantly, that the parties must intend to settle their disputes by a private tribunal and must agree in writing to be bound by its decision. The requirement of intention and agreement in writing does not, however, require that the writing take the specific form of a document signed by all parties. Section 7(4)(b) expressly recognises that an exchange of communications establishing a record of the agreement is sufficient. The principle was further developed in Great Offshore Ltd. v. Iranian Offshore Engineering and Construction Co. ((2008) 14 SCC 240), where the Court held that procedural formalities such as signatures, stamps, seals are red tape and not conclusive if the parties can demonstrate their intention to arbitrate through other justiciable means. Glencore applies this framework in a factual scenario where the conduct evidence was exceptionally strong. The Respondent, Shree Ganesh Metals had never signed the contract containing the arbitration clause, which designated London as the seat. However, it accepted delivery of zinc metal against invoices that each specifically referenced the contract by its unique number. It instructed its bank to issue standby letters of credit that also expressly referenced the same contract. And it sent a direct written communication to Glencore confirming that it would not default in performance under the contract. The Bombay High Court nonetheless refused to refer the parties to arbitration, holding that no concluded contract existed in the absence of a signature. The Supreme Court reversed the concurrent findings of the Single Judge and Division Bench of the Bombay High Court, holding that the court had failed to give proper weightage to the conduct evidence. It held that Shree Ganesh's consistent engagement with the specific contract document demonstrated unequivocal acceptance of its terms, including the arbitration clause. The Court confirmed that signatures are not required under Sections 7(4)(b), 7(4)(c), or 7(5) of the Act, and directed referral to arbitration under Section 45. It is to be considered that the conduct evidence in Glencore was notable for being referential rather than merely consistent. Shree Ganesh did not simply perform obligations that the contract, it did so against documentation that specifically referred the underlying contract by its reference number across multiple independent transactions. This is a pertinent and a material distinction. Conduct that is merely consistent with a contract (for example, accepting delivery of goods without specifically acknowledging the underlying contract document) raises a different evidentiary question from conduct that specifically references the contract and thereby demonstrates that the non-signing party has engaged with its terms. The strength of Glencore as a precedent lies precisely in this specificity, and courts applying the conduct-based framework in future cases will need to attend to the quality of the conduct evidence, not merely its existence. The Significance of Glencore: Glencore clearly settles two pertinent questions that frequently arise. First, it confirms that a non-signing party which has specifically engaged with a contract document across multiple independent transactions cannot resist arbitration on the basis of non-signature alone. The Court's emphasis on referential conduct draws a workable evidentiary line, one where documentation that identifies the contract by name or number carries greater probative weight than performance that is merely consistent with the contract's existence. Second, the decision reinforces that the conduct-based inquiry under Section 7(4)(b) is not a low threshold. A party seeking to establish an arbitration agreement through conduct must demonstrate that the other party engaged with the specific contract, not merely that it behaved in a manner the contract contemplated. For practitioners, the practical lesson cuts in both directions. A party relying on an unsigned contract should ensure that all downstream documentation, including invoices, letters of credit, and written communications, specifically references the contract by its identifier. Conversely, a party that has performed under a contract it did not intend to be bound by must raise that objection early and clearly, since consistent performance against specific contractual references will be treated as unequivocal acceptance of all the contract's terms, including its arbitration clause. III. THE COMMON PRINCIPLE BETWEEN NAGREEKA AND GLENCORE: Nagreeka and Glencore address different facets of failures of consent, but the principle underlying both decisions is the same. An arbitration agreement requires genuine consent to arbitrate, and courts will look to the substance of the parties' relationship rather than the form of their documentation to determine whether that consent exists. In the mandatory obligation line, the inquiry is whether the parties' chosen language reflects a present agreement to be bound by arbitration, or merely a tentative arrangement to consider it. Where the clause is permissive, no amount of subsequent conduct can transform it into a binding agreement. The parties have, by their own words, reserved the right to choose arbitration afresh when a dispute arises. That reservation cannot be overridden by a court. In the conduct and communications line, the inquiry is whether the parties' dealings, taken as a whole, reflect a genuine agreement to arbitrate. Where the arbitration clause is itself mandatory, the absence of a signature is a problem of form rather than substance, and conduct that clearly demonstrates acceptance of the clause will cure it, particularly where that conduct specifically references the contract rather than merely being consistent with its existence. The order in which courts approach these questions also matters. A court must first satisfy itself that the clause in question actually imposes an obligation to arbitrate. If it does not, the question of whether a party is bound through conduct simply does not arise. Nagreeka confirms that this threshold inquiry remains available even at the Section 11 stage. A clause that is plainly permissive on its face can be identified and rejected at that stage itself, without sending the parties through the time and expense of constituting an arbitral tribunal. IV. CONCLUSION: Section 7 of the Act ultimately turns on whether the parties genuinely agreed to resolve their disputes by arbitration. The form of that agreement is quite flexible. It can take the shape of a signed document, an exchange of communications, or clear conduct showing acceptance of a mandatory arbitration clause. What it cannot be is a permissive clause that merely leaves the option of arbitration open for a future decision, or conduct that tries to create an obligation which the parties’ own wording did not establish. When read together, Nagreeka and Glencore mark the two ends of the spectrum. For practitioners, the practical takeaway is clear. The strength of any dispute resolution clause depends on the obligation it actually creates. A clause using “can” or “may” does not amount to a binding arbitration agreement. It is only an invitation that either party can decline. By contrast, when the clause uses clear mandatory language such as “shall”, a party who has performed under the contract cannot easily escape arbitration merely by pointing to the absence of its signature. In the end, there are no shortcuts. Careful drafting that leaves no room for ambiguity, along with proper documentation of performance and acceptance, remains the safest safeguard on both sides. AUTHORED BY – PRAGALBH BHARDWAJ, ASSOCIATE PARTNER, KING STUBB AND KASIVA https://ksandk.com/people/pragalbh-bhardwaj/  

Post-Award Corrections Under Section 33 of the Arbitration Act: Drawing the Line Between Correction and Modification

Introduction One of the defining features of arbitration is the finality of the arbitral award. Parties choose arbitration as an alternative to conventional litigation largely because it offers efficiency, autonomy and a conclusive resolution of disputes. However, like any adjudicatory process, arbitral awards may occasionally contain clerical mistakes, computational inaccuracies or typographical errors that require correction after the award has been rendered. Recognising this practical reality, Section 33 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“Arbitration Act”) provides a limited mechanism for correcting certain categories of errors in arbitral awards. At the same time, the provision carefully preserves the finality of awards by preventing parties from using post-award correction proceedings as a means to reopen or modify substantive findings. The Supreme Court’s recent decision in Gujarat Water Supply and Sewerage Board v. Saryu Plastics Pvt. Ltd.[1] provides important guidance on the scope of Section 33 and reinforces a principle that has consistently shaped Indian arbitration law: a correction is not the same as a modification. The Legislative Framework of Section 33 Section 33 of the Arbitration Act permits parties, within the prescribed period, to request the arbitral tribunal to correct specific categories of mistakes appearing in an award. Under Section 33(1)(a), a party may request correction of: Computational errors; Clerical errors; Typographical errors; or Other errors of a similar nature. The provision reflects internationally recognised principles contained in the UNCITRAL Model Law and is designed to address accidental or mechanical mistakes without undermining the finality of the award itself. Importantly, Section 33 does not confer a power of review. Unlike appellate proceedings, the provision does not permit reconsideration of factual findings, legal conclusions, quantification methodologies or substantive reasoning adopted by the tribunal. The distinction between correcting an error and modifying an award is central to understanding the scope of Section 33. Why Finality Matters in Arbitration The effectiveness of arbitration depends upon certainty and enforceability. If parties were permitted to repeatedly revisit arbitral awards through correction applications, arbitration would lose many of the advantages that distinguish it from traditional litigation. The Arbitration Act therefore creates a carefully balanced framework: Section 33 permits limited corrections; Section 34 permits challenges on specific statutory grounds; Section 37 provides limited appellate remedies. Beyond these mechanisms, courts and arbitral tribunals are generally expected to respect the finality of the award. The Supreme Court has repeatedly emphasised that arbitral awards are not intended to become subject to endless review proceedings. Judicial intervention must remain confined to the circumstances expressly contemplated by the statute. The Distinction Between Correction and Modification A recurring issue in arbitration jurisprudence is determining whether a particular change constitutes a permissible correction or an impermissible modification. A correction generally involves mechanical errors that do not alter the substantive rights and obligations of the parties. Examples include: Mathematical mistakes in calculations; Incorrect dates; Typographical mistakes; Accidental omissions; Errors in names or references. By contrast, a modification alters the substantive outcome of the dispute. Examples may include: Changing the quantum of damages; Revising the basis of liability; Altering contractual interpretations; Modifying the rate or nature of interest; Reassessing evidence or findings of fact. The latter category falls outside the scope of Section 33 because it effectively amounts to a review of the award rather than a correction of an accidental error. Judicial Approach to Post-Award Corrections Indian courts have consistently adopted a restrictive interpretation of Section 33. The rationale is straightforward that is permitting substantive modifications under the guise of correction would undermine both arbitral autonomy and the legislative framework governing challenges to awards. The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that arbitral tribunals become functus officio once they have rendered their final award, subject only to limited powers expressly preserved by statute. Section 33 therefore represents an exception to the principle of finality and must be interpreted narrowly. This approach aligns with international arbitration practice, where correction mechanisms are intended to remedy accidental errors rather than facilitate reconsideration of the merits. The Supreme Court’s Decision in Gujarat Water Supply v. Saryu Plastics The Supreme Court’s recent judgment in Gujarat Water Supply and Sewerage Board v. Saryu Plastics Pvt. Ltd. provides a significant illustration of these principles. The dispute arose from a contract involving the supply of PVC pipes. Following arbitration proceedings, the sole arbitrator awarded approximately ₹1.01 crore to Saryu Plastics. The arbitral award granted: Simple interest for the pendente lite period; and Compound interest from the date of the award until realisation. Subsequently, Saryu Plastics sought to invoke Section 33, contending that the award of simple interest constituted an error and that compound interest should have been awarded for the entire period. The arbitrator rejected the request. However, the Commercial Court later modified the award and substituted compound interest in place of simple interest. The Gujarat High Court affirmed that approach. The Supreme Court overturned both decisions. The Court held that the distinction between simple interest and compound interest is not a clerical, computational or typographical matter. Rather, it forms part of the substantive adjudication undertaken by the arbitral tribunal. The rate and nature of interest directly affect the financial liabilities of the parties and therefore constitute an integral component of the award itself. Accordingly, the Court held that Section 33 cannot be used to alter substantive findings merely because a party believes a different outcome was intended or would be more appropriate. The judgment restored the original arbitral award and reaffirmed the limited scope of post-award correction powers. The Importance of the Judgment The significance of the decision extends beyond the specific dispute. First, it reinforces the distinction between correction and review. Secondly, it prevents parties from using Section 33 as a back-door mechanism to secure substantive modifications that could not otherwise be obtained under the Arbitration Act. Thirdly, it strengthens the principle of finality by confirming that arbitral awards cannot be rewritten through correction proceedings. The decision is particularly important because the modification approved by the lower courts reportedly increased the financial exposure of one party by several multiples. The Supreme Court rightly observed that such a substantial change cannot be characterised as a mere correction of an accidental error. The ruling also aligns with the broader pro-arbitration trend visible in recent Indian jurisprudence, where courts have consistently sought to minimise intervention and preserve arbitral autonomy. Practical Implications for Parties and Arbitrators The judgment offers several practical lessons. For parties: Section 33 should be invoked only for genuine clerical or computational errors. Dissatisfaction with substantive findings must be addressed through the statutory challenge mechanisms provided under the Arbitration Act. Correction applications should not be viewed as an opportunity to improve the outcome of an award. For arbitrators: Awards should clearly distinguish between different categories of interest. Careful drafting reduces the likelihood of post-award disputes. Reasons supporting the grant of interest should be expressly recorded wherever possible. For courts: The decision reinforces the need for judicial restraint when examining post-award correction proceedings. Courts must ensure that correction powers are not transformed into powers of modification. Conclusion Section 33 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 serves an important but limited purpose. It allows accidental mistakes in arbitral awards to be corrected without undermining the finality of the arbitral process. However, the provision was never intended to operate as a mechanism for reviewing, revising or rewriting awards. The Supreme Court’s decision in Gujarat Water Supply and Sewerage Board v. Saryu Plastics Pvt. Ltd. provides a clear reaffirmation of this principle. By holding that the substitution of simple interest with compound interest constitutes a substantive modification rather than a permissible correction, the Court has drawn an important boundary between procedural rectification and substantive adjudication. As India continues to strengthen its arbitration ecosystem, the judgment serves as a valuable reminder that arbitration can remain effective only when the finality of arbitral awards is respected and post-award correction mechanisms are confined to their intended purpose. https://indiankanoon.org/doc/104892256/ ↑  Authored by Deepika Kumari, Partner https://ksandk.com/people/deepika-kumari/

India Opens the Door to Chinese Investment: A Complete Guide to Press Note 2, 2026 and the FEMA NDI Amendments

Introduction In a landmark policy reset spanning six years of careful deliberation, diplomatic repair, and economic pragmatism, India has opened the door to investment from China and its other land-border neighbours, not in a single sweeping act, but in a measured, security-conscious, and phased manner that reflects the sophistication of India’s evolving role in the global economic order. Three instruments, issued between March and June 2026, together constitute the most consequential reform of India’s foreign investment framework since the original liberalisation of the 1990s: Press Note 2, 2026 (March 10); the FEMA (Non-Debt Instruments) (First and Second Amendment) Rules, 2026 (May 1-2); and the FEMA (Non-Debt Instruments) (Third Amendment) Rules, 2026 (June 12). Each builds on the last. Together, they transform what was a near-total prohibition on Chinese capital into a sophisticated, PMLA-anchored, control-sensitive framework, one that welcomes minority participation and technology partnerships while preserving India’s sovereign right to screen controlling investments. This article traces the full arc of India’s land-border country (LBC) investment policy from the origins of Press Note 3 in 2020 through to the Third Amendment of June 2026 and explains, with practical specificity, what is now open, what remains screened, and what the phased trajectory ahead looks like for Chinese investors, their Indian partners, and the broader investment community. Table of contents Introduction The Genesis: Why Press Note 3 (2020) Was Born The Diplomatic Road Back: From Galwan to Kazan to New Delhi Press Note 2, 2026: The Policy Reset (March 10, 2026) The Three Pillars of Press Note 2, 2026 Pillar 1: The Automatic Route for Minority Non-Controlling Stakes Pillar 2: The 60-Day Expedited Approval for Priority Manufacturing Sectors Pillar 3: PMLA-Aligned Beneficial Ownership Definition FEMA Codification: Three Amendments in Seven Weeks (May-June 2026) A. First Amendment – May 1, 2026 (S.O. 2174(E)) B. Second Amendment – May 2, 2026 (S.O. 2186(E)) C. Third Amendment – June 12, 2026 (S.O. 3030(E)) – The Portfolio Investment Dimension What Is Now Open to Chinese Investors: A Practical Guide Phase 1: What Requires Government Approval (But Now Within 60 Days for Priority Sectors) What Remains Restricted The Priority Sectors: Where Chinese Investment Is Most Welcome The Road Ahead: Phased Deepening of India-China Investment Ties What Phase 2 Could Look Like (2026-2027) The Conditions for Phase 3 (2027-2030) Beneficial Ownership: The Gating Mechanism The Three Overlapping BO Tests in the LBC Framework India’s ‘Securonomics’: A New Template for Investment Governance Conclusion: The Door Is Open. The Architecture Is Strong. The Genesis: Why Press Note 3 (2020) Was Born Press Note 3 of 2020 notified on April 17, 2020, one month before the Galwan Valley border clash of June 2020, is widely but inaccurately remembered as a response to the India-China military confrontation. In fact, it was a prophylactic measure, introduced when global markets were in freefall and India’s Ministry of Finance feared opportunistic acquisitions of distressed Indian companies by Chinese state-linked entities during the COVID-19 pandemic. The trigger was precisely the European playbook: watching Chinese entities snap up stakes in European companies at pandemic-distressed valuations, India’s policymakers decided to pre-empt a similar scenario. Press Note 3 placed all FDI from entities incorporated in, or with beneficial owners in countries sharing a land border with India under mandatory prior government approval. The seven countries affected were China, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nepal, Bhutan, Myanmar, and Afghanistan. Contrary to popular narrative, Press Note 3 was not issued because of China specifically – its text applied equally to all seven land-border countries. But its practical effect was felt almost exclusively in relation to China, because Chinese companies were the most commercially active in seeking Indian FDI routes. The result was a near-complete freeze on new Chinese FDI into India, which had already been modest: total Chinese FDI since April 2000 to December 2025 stood at just USD 2.51 billion, representing 0.32% of India’s cumulative FDI inflows. WHAT PRESS NOTE 3 (2020) DID Trigger: Any FDI from an entity incorporated in, or with a beneficial owner resident in, any land-border country regardless of investment size, sector, or nature. Effect: Mandatory prior government approval for all such investments. In practice, approval was slow (typically 6-12+ months), unpredictable, and rarely granted for Chinese applicants. The framework had no prescribed timeline, no fast-track mechanism, and no defined beneficial ownership threshold. The paradox it created: India continued to import heavily from China – the trade deficit reached USD 99 billion in FY2024-25 and crossed USD 112 billion in FY2025-26. Chinese goods flowed into India in vast quantities, but Chinese capital was blocked. The result was a structural dependency without the technology transfer and localisation benefits that investment would have brought.         The Diplomatic Road Back: From Galwan to Kazan to New Delhi The path from Press Note 3 to Press Note 2 was not a legal journey, it was a geopolitical one. Four years of diplomatic repair were required before India felt confident enough to revisit its LBC investment framework. The October 2024 Modi-Xi summit on the sidelines of the BRICS meeting in Kazan, Russia, proved to be the inflection point. Both leaders agreed to work toward ‘a fair, reasonable and mutually-acceptable solution’ to the border issue, and pledged to expand trade and investment ties acknowledging the role of both economies in stabilising global trade. Commerce and Industry Minister Piyush Goyal declared that India-China relations were ‘gradually moving towards normalcy.’ By January 2026, DPIIT had commenced inter-ministerial consultations on easing the PN3 restrictions. The Economic Survey 2023-24 had already proposed a rethink. NITI Aayog had recommended automatic clearance for Chinese investments of up to 24% in Indian ventures. The macroeconomic case was compelling: India’s dependence on Chinese electronics components, solar manufacturing inputs, capital goods, and APIs made the continuation of the blanket investment prohibition increasingly difficult to justify from an economic standpoint. Factor The Case for Easing Trade dependency paradox India imported USD 108 billion from China in FY2025-26 while keeping Chinese FDI at USD 2.51 billion total since 2000. Blocking capital while accepting goods was an economically incoherent position. Technology localisation Joint ventures and minority investments by Chinese electronics, EV, and solar companies could help India build domestic component ecosystems – critical for PLI scheme success and reducing import dependency. Global supply chain dynamics US-China trade tensions and tariff escalation post-2024 created a window for India to attract China+1 manufacturing investment. Restricting Chinese capital risked losing these flows to Vietnam, Thailand, and Malaysia. Diplomatic momentum The 2024 Kazan summit and subsequent bilateral restoration created the political space for investment easing – China being India’s second-largest trading partner despite five years of strained relations. Atmanirbhar Bharat alignment Selectively inviting Chinese capital into manufacturing sectors aligns with, rather than contradicts, the self-reliance mission: it builds Indian productive capacity using foreign investment, rather than relying on Chinese imports.   Press Note 2, 2026: The Policy Reset (March 10, 2026) On March 10, 2026, following a Union Cabinet meeting chaired by Prime Minister Narendra Modi, the Department for Promotion of Industry and Internal Trade notified Press Note 2, 2026 (PN2). This Press Note does not repeal Press Note 3. It amends it and the distinction is deliberate and important. India has not abandoned its security-sensitive approach to LBC investment. It has refined it. The Three Pillars of Press Note 2, 2026 Pillar 1: The Automatic Route for Minority Non-Controlling Stakes The most commercially significant change in PN2 is the creation of an automatic route for investments of up to 10% by land-border country entities provided the investment does not result in the LBC entity acquiring control or a beneficial ownership (as defined under PMLA Rule 9(3)) above 10%. For the first time since 2020, Chinese investors can make minority, passive, portfolio-type investments in Indian listed and unlisted companies without requiring prior government approval. This is not a trivial opening. Many forms of strategic minority investment – a 7% stake in a listed technology company, a 9% equity position in a manufacturing JV, a seed-stage investment in an Indian deeptech startup now qualify for the automatic route. The approval process that previously consumed 6-12 months and delivered uncertain outcomes is, for these investments, simply eliminated. Pillar 2: The 60-Day Expedited Approval for Priority Manufacturing Sectors Where government approval is still required because the investment exceeds 10%, involves control, or falls in a sensitive sector – PN2 introduces India’s most investor-friendly procedural improvement in a generation: a committed 60-day approval timeline for investments in priority manufacturing sectors. These sectors are electronics, capital goods, and solar cells, precisely the areas where Chinese technology, capital, and supply-chain expertise are most urgently needed by India’s manufacturing ecosystem. This 60-day commitment transforms the investment landscape for Chinese manufacturers and their Indian partners. The previous framework offered no prescribed timeline. Investors faced open-ended waits of 6-12 months or more, which made business planning, financing, and JV negotiations effectively impossible. The 60-day window provides the predictability that serious investors require. Pillar 3: PMLA-Aligned Beneficial Ownership Definition PN2 formally aligns the beneficial ownership definition for LBC investment screening with the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, specifically clause (fa) of Section 2(1) and Rule 9(3) of the PML (Maintenance of Records) Rules, 2005. This means an LBC entity is a ‘beneficial owner’ triggering the approval requirement only when it owns 10% or more of the shares, capital, or profits of the investing vehicle – or when it exercises control. This clarification is profoundly important for global fund structures. Prior to PN2, the beneficial ownership definition was unclear and contested. A Chinese limited partner holding even 1 share in an offshore fund investing in India could theoretically be characterised as triggering PN3. The PMLA-aligned 10% threshold provides a commercially workable and legally precise boundary. THE CORE PRINCIPLE OF PRESS NOTE 2, 2026 PN2 reframes the 2020-era national security cordon from a blanket quarantine to a calibrated filter that distinguishes control from mere capital. The question is no longer ‘Is there any LBC connection?’ but rather ‘Does this investment result in LBC control?’ It is a pivotal move in India’s ‘securonomics’ embedding geopolitical risk assessment into investment policy without choking legitimate commercial investment.     Parameter Press Note 3, 2020 (Old) Press Note 2, 2026 (Current) Automatic Route Not available for any LBC-linked investment Available for ≤10% non-controlling investment from LBC entity Government Approval Trigger Any investment with any LBC connection Investment resulting in LBC control, or LBC beneficial ownership >10% Approval Timeline No prescribed timeline – typically 6-12+ months 60-day commitment for priority manufacturing sectors Priority Sectors No special treatment Electronics, capital goods, solar cells expedited 60-day approval BO Definition Undefined – blanket application PMLA Rule 9(3): ≥10% shares/capital/profits, or control, or effective control Hong Kong Treated as China – no automatic route Treated as China – same PN2 framework (unchanged) Policy Logic Blanket quarantine – opportunistic acquisition prevention Calibrated filter – control vs. capital distinction Pakistani Investment Required approval – same as all LBC countries Retained as restricted, explicitly preserved in FEMA NDI Rules   FEMA Codification: Three Amendments in Seven Weeks (May-June 2026) Press Notes are executive policy instruments. They acquire full legal force only when codified into the operative FEMA instrument – the Foreign Exchange Management (Non-Debt Instruments) Rules, 2019. The codification of PN2 into FEMA law came in three stages between May 1 and June 12, 2026, each adding a new layer of legal precision. First Amendment – May 1, 2026 (S.O. 2174(E)) The First Amendment operationalised Press Note 2 by substituting Rule 6(a) of the NDI Rules. For the first time, the beneficial owner definition for LBC investment screening was formally enshrined in FEMA’s primary instrument, with explicit cross-reference to PMLA Section 2(1)(fa) and PML Rules Rule 9(3). A new reporting obligation was also introduced: investments below the government approval threshold but with any LBC ownership linkage must still be reported to RBI through the Authorised Dealer bank. This ensures the government retains visibility over all LBC-connected capital flows, even where approval is not required. Second Amendment – May 2, 2026 (S.O. 2186(E)) The Second Amendment made targeted sectoral clarifications, including an important liberalisation for insurance sector joint venture structures. It clarified that standard affirmative rights in JV governance frameworks do not automatically constitute ‘control’ under the FDI Policy – providing relief to foreign investors in regulated sectors where minority governance protections are commercially essential. Third Amendment – June 12, 2026 (S.O. 3030(E)) – The Portfolio Investment Dimension The Third Amendment i.e. the subject of the Gazette of India notification S.O. 3030(E) dated June 12, 2026 is the most far-reaching in its structural implications, extending the LBC framework into the portfolio investment dimension and simultaneously expanding India’s capital markets access for all foreign individuals. Third Amendment Change Legal Effect Significance for China-India Investment Rule 9(1): ‘NRI/OCI’ → ‘an individual’ Portfolio Investment Scheme (PIS) extended from NRIs and OCIs to any individual person resident outside India Chinese individual investors previously excluded from the PIS route can now directly hold listed Indian equities up to 10% individual cap without FPI registration Rule 12(1) new proviso: LBC outcome trigger Investment by individual ROPI resulting in transfer of ownership or CONTROL of listed Indian company to LBC entities/citizens requires prior government approval; BO per PMLA S.2(1) (fa) + PML Rules 9(3) Outcome-based, not percentage-based distinct from PN2’s 10% FDI threshold. Small holding transfer that tips LBC control still requires approval. Control remains the decisive criterion. Rule 13(1) second proviso: LBC transfer trigger Transfer of listed equity by individual ROPI resulting in LBC control acquisition requires prior government approval Individual sellers of listed company shares to Chinese-connected acquirers must screen Rule 13 LBC proviso new condition precedent in M&A transactions Schedule II: investor group aggregation Total FPI investor group holdings (SEBI FPI Regs 2019 definition) across all schedules in any listed Indian company must be <10% Prevents Chinese-linked FPI groups from aggregating stakes across multiple FPI entities to cross the 10% threshold and avoid FDI reclassification Schedule III: cross-schedule aggregation Individual ROPI aggregate holdings across all schedules in one listed company must be <10%; breach = 5-day divestment or FDI reclassification Ensures the newly expanded individual ROPI access does not become a route to build controlling positions in Indian listed companies below the FPI radar   What Is Now Open to Chinese Investors: A Practical Guide The cumulative effect of PN2 and the three FEMA amendments is a framework that is genuinely open for Chinese minority capital participation while maintaining sovereign screening of control-seeking investment. Here is what is now accessible: Phase 1: What Is Open NOW (Automatic Route – No Approval Required) Investment Type Conditions Sectors Available Practical Example Minority FDI stake in Indian company (≤10%) No controlling interest; LBC BO <10% (PMLA Rule 9(3)); non-sensitive sector All sectors open on automatic route except defence, sensitive media, nuclear, space – same as general FDI automatic route Chinese electronics component maker takes 8% equity stake in Indian EV battery startup; no government approval needed; FC-GPR within 30 days Portfolio Investment via PIS route (individual) – NEW June 12, 2026 Individual Chinese ROPI; <10% in any listed Indian company; total individual ROPI aggregate across all schedules <10% All listed Indian companies subject to individual cap Chinese individual investor directly purchases 6% of Infosys shares on NSE through AD bank-designated branch; repatriation basis FPI investment by Chinese-linked fund (<10% per investor group) Chinese LP holding <10% in offshore fund (per PMLA); fund’s investor group aggregate holdings in any listed Indian company <10% Listed equity, G-Secs, corporate bonds, REITs, InvITs US/Singapore PE fund with 8% passive Chinese LP invests in Indian listed equities; investor group cross-schedule aggregate <10% per company Technology licensing and IP transfer agreements Not equity investment – no FDI cap constraints; governed by FEMA current account and IT Act transfer pricing All sectors Chinese technology company licenses solar cell manufacturing IP to Indian JV partner; payment via royalty under FEMA current account Export-linked collaboration and supply chain partnerships Supply agreements are current account transactions; not FDI All manufacturing sectors Chinese component supplier establishes India office and supply arrangement with Indian electronics manufacturer under PLI scheme   Phase 1: What Requires Government Approval (But Now Within 60 Days for Priority Sectors) Investment Type Approval Timeline Priority 60-Day Track? Notes Chinese entity acquiring >10% stake in Indian company Standard: 3-6 months; priority sectors: 60 days YES electronics, capital goods, solar cells Government retains right to impose conditions on approval (e.g. technology transfer commitments, Indian workforce requirements) Chinese entity acquiring controlling interest in Indian company (any size) Standard: 3-6 months; priority sectors: 60 days YES for priority sectors Controlling interest means right to appoint majority of board, veto key decisions, or own majority equity, Rule 23 NDI Rules definition Investment in sensitive sectors – defence, space, nuclear, sensitive media Sector-specific approval; no expedited timeline NO These sectors have independent sectoral restrictions applying to all foreign investors; LBC investors face additional LBC screening on top Investment where Chinese entity BO >10% in investing vehicle (PMLA Rule 9(3)) Standard: 3-6 months; priority sectors: 60 days YES, for priority sectors Key: BO is computed at every layer of the structure; layered offshore funds must ensure no LBC entity holds >10% at any layer Hong Kong-incorporated entity investing in India Same as Chinese entity – Hong Kong treated identically YES, for priority sectors (HK entity investing in electronics, capital goods, solar) HK vehicles are not grandfathered or exempt; Third Amendment reinforces this – HK applies same cross-schedule aggregation rules   What Remains Restricted Three categories of investment from land-border countries remain entirely or practically restricted regardless of the PN2 framework: Pakistan: Investment from Pakistani entities remains effectively prohibited. The FEMA NDI Rules 2026 explicitly preserve Pakistan’s restricted status. Government approval is required but extremely rarely granted given bilateral security considerations. Afghanistan: Investment remains restricted given security, sanctions, and AML/FATF considerations. No meaningful opening is contemplated in the near term. Sensitive strategic sectors: Defence (above 74%), nuclear, space, and certain sensitive media sub-segments require government approval for all foreign investors – LBC investors face the additional LBC screening on top of these baseline sector restrictions. The 60-day expedited track does not apply to sensitive strategic sectors. The Priority Sectors: Where Chinese Investment Is Most Welcome The identification of electronics, capital goods, and solar cells as priority manufacturing sectors for the 60-day expedited approval track is a deliberate signal. These are precisely the sectors where India’s dependency on Chinese imports is most acute, where Chinese manufacturing expertise is globally dominant, and where the transfer of technology and investment to Indian operations would most directly serve Atmanirbhar Bharat objectives. Priority Sector India’s Import Dependency on China PN2 Opportunity Expected Investment Forms Electronics & Components India imported ~$40B in electronics/components from China in FY2025-26. Chinese companies control critical component supply chains for smartphones, laptops, telecom equipment, and consumer electronics manufactured in India under PLI scheme. Chinese electronics manufacturers can now invest up to 10% without approval; controlling JVs via 60-day process; technology licensing agreements freely permitted Minority equity stakes in Indian electronics manufacturers; JVs for component production; technology licensing and know-how transfer agreements Capital Goods India remains dependent on Chinese machinery, manufacturing equipment, and industrial tools. Domestic capital goods production has been a long-standing weakness. 60-day expedited approval for controlling JVs; Chinese capital goods manufacturers can co-invest with Indian partners to produce locally what India currently imports Manufacturing JVs; controlled investment in Indian capital goods manufacturers; equity stakes in Indian industrial equipment companies Solar Cells & Renewable Energy China controls over 80% of global solar manufacturing, including polysilicon, ingots, wafers, cells, and modules. India’s PLI solar scheme has created domestic manufacturing capacity but upstream components still heavily import-dependent. 60-day approval for Chinese solar investment; Chinese solar technology partners can form controlling JVs with Indian manufacturers; minority stakes in listed Indian solar companies on automatic route JVs for upstream solar component manufacturing (polysilicon, wafers, cells); minority FDI in Indian listed solar companies; technology licensing for advanced solar cell manufacturing Electric Vehicles & Battery Technology India’s EV transition is progressing rapidly under PLI scheme, but battery cell manufacturing and advanced powertrain components are largely imported from China. While EV is not a named priority sector in PN2, it benefits indirectly – capital goods for battery manufacturing fall within the priority category Battery JVs; minority investment in Indian EV manufacturers; cell chemistry technology licensing   The Road Ahead: Phased Deepening of India-China Investment Ties Press Note 2, 2026 and the three FEMA amendments are not the end of India’s investment policy evolution – they are the beginning of a new phase. The framework is explicitly designed for incremental deepening, contingent on bilateral progress and investor behaviour under the new rules. What Phase 2 Could Look Like (2026-2027) Several policy proposals are in active discussion and could form the basis of Phase 2 liberalisation if PN2 operates smoothly: Proposal Source Potential Impact Raise automatic route threshold from 10% to 24% NITI Aayog recommendation; Economic Survey 2023-24 signals Would align LBC automatic route threshold with the aggregate FPI cap under Schedule III and the general DPIIT FDI policy framework creating a more commercially significant opening for strategic minority positions Sectoral expansion of 60-day expedited track Industry representations from ICEA (electronics), CII, FICCI Extending the 60-day approval commitment beyond electronics, capital goods, and solar cells to pharmaceuticals, EVs, and specialty chemicals would accelerate investment in sectors with the highest technology transfer potential Green channel for JV applications with technology transfer commitments DPIIT consultation process Chinese companies committing to technology transfer, Indian R&D investment, and workforce training could qualify for streamlined approval aligning investment with Atmanirbhar Bharat manufacturing targets Formal bilateral investment treaty revival Ministry of External Affairs discussion track India-China BIT negotiations, suspended since 2020, could resume as bilateral relations normalise. A BIT would provide Chinese investors with treaty-level protection and dispute resolution access, significantly improving investor confidence   The Conditions for Phase 3 (2027-2030) Further substantive deepening towards a more open bilateral investment environment, will be contingent on a set of conditions that are as much diplomatic and security-related as they are economic: Sustained border peace and confidence-building measures along the Line of Actual Control. Track record of PN2 investments proceeding smoothly, without national security concerns being raised over approved minority investments. Bilateral progress on the trade deficit if Chinese investment in Indian manufacturing begins to reduce import dependency and contribute to exports, the political economy for further opening becomes far more favourable. FATF and AML credibility – India’s implementation of its AML/PMLA obligations will continue to shape how Chinese investment is screened, and international peer review of both India’s and China’s FATF compliance will influence the bilateral investment framework. US-India-China strategic triangulation – India’s investment policy toward China is inevitably influenced by the broader India-US strategic partnership. Further opening is more likely if framed as attracting manufacturing FDI that strengthens Indian industrial capacity rather than transferring strategic technology. India’s phased approach is not timidity, it is strategy. Each phase builds investor confidence, generates data on actual investment behaviour, and creates political space for the next opening. – ISAS Brief 1335, January 2026 (adapted) Beneficial Ownership: The Gating Mechanism At the heart of the entire LBC framework across Press Note 2, the FEMA NDI amendments, and the Third Amendment is the concept of beneficial ownership (BO). Understanding the BO framework is not optional for Chinese investors or their advisers: it is the gating mechanism that determines whether a given investment is on the automatic route, requires government approval, or is restricted entirely. The Three Overlapping BO Tests in the LBC Framework Beneficial Ownership Thresholds Across Investment Routes The June 2026 amendments have introduced a harmonized approach to determining beneficial ownership across different foreign investment routes. At the core of these changes is the adoption of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (“PMLA”) framework, which generally treats a person holding 10% or more ownership, economic interest, or control in an investing entity as a Beneficial Owner (“BO”). Foreign Direct Investment (FDI): For FDI transactions, government approval is required where a beneficial owner from a land-bordering country (“LBC”) holds more than 10% ownership or exercises control over the investing entity. Approval may also be required where an LBC entity acquires control of the investment vehicle. Retail Portfolio Investments (ROPI): The amendments extend the same beneficial ownership test to portfolio investments in listed Indian companies. Government approval will be necessary if the investment or transfer results in ownership or control being acquired by an LBC entity or citizen, or where the beneficial owner of the investment is an LBC citizen. Foreign Portfolio Investors (FPIs): For FPIs, the focus shifts to the concept of an “investor group” under the SEBI FPI Regulations. Holdings of all entities within the investor group are aggregated, and once the group's stake in a listed Indian company reaches 10% or more, the investment is reclassified as FDI. Where any member of the investor group has links to an LBC, the Press Note 2 approval framework may also be triggered. Taken together, these amendments reflect a clear regulatory objective: ensuring that investments with significant ownership or control links to land-bordering countries are subject to enhanced scrutiny, irrespective of the investment route adopted. The common thread across all four tests is the PMLA Rule 9(3) definition and specifically the 10% ownership threshold. This consistency is deliberate. By anchoring the entire LBC framework in a single, well-understood statutory definition that already applies to PMLA compliance, the government has made the analysis replicable, auditable, and legally precise. PRACTICAL NOTE FOR CHINESE INVESTORS AND THEIR ADVISERS The key question at every layer of an investment structure is: does any entity from China, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nepal, Bhutan, Myanmar, Afghanistan or any Hong Kong-incorporated entity, own ≥10% of shares, capital, or profits of the investing vehicle? If yes at any layer, government approval is required. If no LBC entity has ≥10% and no LBC entity has control: automatic route is available (with the new RBI reporting obligation still applying). Conduct this analysis at every holding vehicle, fund entity, and SPV in the chain before any investment is made or any transfer of shares is effected. India’s ‘Securonomics’: A New Template for Investment Governance The framework that has emerged from Press Note 2 and the three FEMA amendments of 2026 represents something genuinely novel in global investment governance: a security-conscious, legally precise, PMLA-anchored framework that enables commercial investment from geopolitical rivals while protecting against control-seeking capital. It is India’s contribution to the global debate on investment screening that has been raging in the US (CFIUS), Europe (EU FDI screening regulation), and the UK (National Security and Investment Act) since 2017. What makes the Indian model distinctive is its emphasis on beneficial ownership rather than country of incorporation. The framework does not ask: ‘Is this company Chinese?’ It asks: ‘Is there a Chinese beneficial owner above the 10% threshold, and does this investment result in Chinese control?’ This sophistication allows genuinely multinational capital – global PE funds with minority Chinese LP participation, Cayman structures with Hong Kong feeder vehicles containing LBC sub-threshold stakes, to participate in India’s economy, while keeping the screening mechanism focused on what actually matters: who controls the investment and where that control resides. India is not unique in navigating this challenge. Australia’s Foreign Investment Review Board, Japan’s Committee on Foreign Investment, and the European Commission’s FDI screening mechanism all grapple with the same fundamental tension: how to remain open to the world’s largest source of outward FDI (China) while protecting national security interests. India’s PN2 framework, with its PMLA-anchored BO definition and 60-day priority sector track, compares favourably with the best international practice. Conclusion: The Door Is Open. The Architecture Is Strong. Six years after the blanket restrictions of Press Note 3, India has opened a door to Chinese and land-border country investment that is purposeful, legally rigorous, commercially workable, and strategically calibrated. The framework is simultaneously more open and more sophisticated than what it replaced. For Chinese investors, the message is clear: minority, non-controlling capital in Indian manufacturing, technology, and listed equity is now welcome. The automatic route is available. The 60-day approval track for priority manufacturing sectors is a genuine procedural advance. The PMLA-anchored beneficial ownership definition provides legal certainty that the old framework conspicuously lacked. And the Third Amendment’s expansion of the portfolio investment route to all individuals resident outside India including Chinese nationals completes the picture with an accessible, low-friction entry point for individual investors. For Indian companies seeking Chinese partnerships, the framework enables what the economy requires: technology transfer, capital formation in component manufacturing, and supply chain integration – all without surrendering control of strategic assets to foreign entities. The PLI scheme and the PN2 framework are now aligned: both seek to build Indian manufacturing capability using global capital and expertise, with Indian entities remaining in the driver’s seat. The road ahead will be navigated in phases. Phase 1 now fully operative delivers the automatic route, the 60-day track, and the individual PIS access. Phase 2, if political conditions permit, may extend the automatic route threshold to 24% and broaden the expedited approval track to more sectors. Phase 3: medium-term, subject to sustained bilateral progress could see India and China arrive at a bilateral investment framework that reflects their status as two of the world’s largest and most complementary economies. India’s door is open. The architecture of the framework ensures it will remain open on India’s terms – measured, sovereign, and in service of India’s long-term economic ambitions. Authored by Aurelia Menezes, Partner and Co-authored by Prithiviraj Senthil Nathan, Partner https://ksandk.com/people/prithiviraj-senthil-nathan-2/

The Evolving Nature of Free Consent in Contemporary Contract Law

Introduction The principle of free consent is one of the cornerstones of contract law and plays a fundamental role in determining whether an agreement qualifies as a valid and enforceable contract under the Indian Contract Act, 1872. A contract becomes legally binding only when the parties enter into it voluntarily and with a clear understanding of its essential terms. Sections 13 and 14 of the Indian Contract Act establish the legal framework governing consent and free consent. The law recognises that consent is not truly free where it is obtained through coercion, undue influence, fraud, misrepresentation or mistake. These safeguards are intended to preserve fairness, autonomy and genuine agreement in contractual relationships. However, the modern commercial landscape has significantly altered the way contracts are formed. Digital contracts, click-wrap agreements, standard form contracts and platform-based transactions have raised new questions regarding whether consent is truly voluntary or merely formal. As a result, the doctrine of free consent must increasingly be examined not only through the lens of contractual autonomy but also through considerations of fairness, bargaining power and informed choice. Understanding Consent and Free Consent The concept of consent is rooted in the principle of consensus ad idem, meaning a “meeting of the minds.” Under Section 13 of the Indian Contract Act, parties are said to consent when they agree upon the same thing in the same sense. This requirement ensures that both parties possess a common understanding of the subject matter and essential terms of the contract. Without such agreement, no enforceable contract can arise. The Supreme Court in Tarsem Singh v. Sukhminder Singh[1] observed that where parties are fundamentally mistaken about the nature or subject matter of the agreement and there is no true meeting of minds, the contract may be rendered void. Similarly, in Bhagwandas Goverdhandas Kedia v. Girdharilal Parshottamdas, the Supreme Court emphasised the importance of communication and acceptance in contract formation, particularly where parties negotiate from different locations. Section 14 further clarifies that consent is considered “free” when it is not caused by coercion, undue influence, fraud, misrepresentation or mistake. The doctrine seeks to ensure that contractual obligations arise from genuine and voluntary agreement rather than manipulation or pressure. Factors Vitiating Free Consent Coercion Section 15 of the Indian Contract Act defines coercion as committing or threatening to commit any act forbidden by the Indian Penal Code, or unlawfully detaining or threatening to detain property, with the intention of causing a person to enter into an agreement. The essence of coercion lies in the absence of free will. In Chikkam Ammiraju v. Chikkam Seshamma[2], a threat to commit suicide was held to constitute coercion because it was used to compel consent. Contracts induced through coercion are voidable at the option of the aggrieved party. Undue Influence Undue influence, governed by Section 16, arises when one party is in a position to dominate the will of another and uses that position to obtain an unfair advantage. The doctrine is particularly relevant in fiduciary and confidential relationships such as those involving doctors, lawyers, trustees and guardians. In Subhash Chandra Das Mushib v. Ganga Prasad Das Mushib[3], the Supreme Court clarified that the existence of a relationship alone is insufficient; it must also be shown that domination of will resulted in an unfair advantage. Likewise, in Raghunath Prasad v. Sarju Prasad[4], the Court held that the burden of proving undue influence generally rests upon the party alleging it, unless circumstances indicate a fiduciary relationship warranting a different approach. Fraud Fraud is defined under Section 17 as intentional deception designed to induce another person to enter into a contract. Fraud may take the form of false statements, active concealment of material facts, promises made without intention to perform them, or other deceptive conduct intended to mislead. The Supreme Court in S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu v. Jagannath[5] famously observed that fraud vitiates all judicial acts and transactions. Similarly, in A. Ayyasamy v. A. Paramasivam[6], the Court reiterated that allegations of serious fraud may affect the validity of contractual and arbitral proceedings. Because fraud strikes at the very foundation of consent, contracts induced by fraud are voidable at the option of the affected party. Misrepresentation Misrepresentation, governed by Section 18, occurs when a party makes an untrue statement that induces another party to enter into a contract, despite lacking any intention to deceive. Unlike fraud, misrepresentation does not require dishonest intent. It may arise through innocent misstatements, negligent assertions or misleading conduct. The law recognises that parties should be able to rely upon representations made during contractual negotiations. Consequently, where a contract is induced by misrepresentation, the aggrieved party may rescind the agreement and, in certain circumstances, seek additional remedies. The doctrine promotes honesty and reasonable care in commercial dealings while distinguishing between deliberate deception and genuine mistakes. Mistake Mistake constitutes another factor that may affect the validity of consent. Sections 20 to 22 distinguish between bilateral and unilateral mistakes. A bilateral mistake relating to a fundamental fact essential to the agreement generally renders the contract void because there is no true consensus between the parties. In contrast, a unilateral mistake ordinarily does not affect contractual validity unless exceptional circumstances exist. The Act further distinguishes between mistakes of fact and mistakes of law. While a mistake of Indian law generally affords no relief, a mistake concerning foreign law is treated as a mistake of fact. These distinctions seek to balance commercial certainty with fairness in contractual relationships. Comparative Perspectives on Free Consent The doctrine of free consent exists across legal systems, although different jurisdictions approach the concept in distinct ways. English contract law has historically developed the doctrine through judicial decisions. For example, North Ocean Shipping Co. Ltd. v. Hyundai Construction Co. Ltd. recognised the concept of economic pressure in contractual negotiations, while Allcard v. Skinner[7] expanded the doctrine of undue influence within fiduciary relationships. In the United States, courts frequently rely on the doctrine of unconscionability to assess whether a contract is fundamentally unfair due to unequal bargaining power. The landmark decision in Williams v. Walker-Thomas Furniture Co.[8] demonstrated the willingness of courts to intervene where contractual terms result in significant substantive unfairness. Civil law jurisdictions such as France and Germany adopt codified approaches that expressly address contracts affected by fraud, mistake or duress. Similarly, Islamic contract law recognises that agreements obtained through coercion or deception are inconsistent with principles of justice and fairness. These comparative developments demonstrate a broader global shift from strict contractual freedom towards balancing autonomy with protection of vulnerable parties. Contemporary Challenges and the Need for Reform Although the doctrine of free consent remains central to contract law, several contemporary challenges have emerged. One significant concern is the increasing prevalence of standard form contracts and “take-it-or-leave-it” agreements. Such contracts are common in employment arrangements, consumer transactions, online services and e-commerce platforms. In many cases, one party has little or no meaningful opportunity to negotiate contractual terms. Digital contracts further complicate the analysis of consent. Click-wrap and browse-wrap agreements frequently require users to accept lengthy terms and conditions without reading or understanding them. While courts generally recognise such agreements as enforceable, questions remain regarding whether users genuinely provide informed consent. Another challenge involves proving undue influence, fraud and misrepresentation. These concepts often involve subtle conduct that can be difficult to establish through evidence, particularly where power imbalances exist. Indian law also does not currently recognise economic duress as a distinct ground for invalidating consent. However, economic pressure and unequal bargaining power are increasingly common features of modern commercial relationships. To address these concerns, several reforms merit consideration: · Recognition of economic duress as an independent ground affecting free consent. · Enhanced protection against unfair terms in digital and standard form contracts. · Greater judicial scrutiny of contracts involving significant inequality of bargaining power. · Improved consumer awareness regarding contractual rights and obligations. · Stronger safeguards for vulnerable parties in fiduciary and digital transactions. Such reforms would strengthen the doctrine’s ability to respond to contemporary commercial realities while preserving contractual certainty. Conclusion Free consent remains one of the foundational principles of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, ensuring that contractual obligations arise from genuine and voluntary agreement between parties. While the traditional grounds that vitiate consent i.e. coercion, undue influence, fraud, misrepresentation and mistake, continue to provide important safeguards, modern commercial realities present challenges that were not contemplated when the legislation was enacted. The growth of digital commerce, click-wrap agreements, standard form contracts and platform-based transactions has raised new questions regarding the quality of consent and the extent to which parties truly exercise meaningful choice. Similarly, issues such as economic pressure, information asymmetry and unequal bargaining power increasingly test the limits of traditional contractual doctrines. As commercial relationships become more complex and technology-driven, Indian contract law may need to evolve through judicial interpretation and legislative reform. Ultimately, the doctrine of free consent must protect not only the formal act of agreement but also the broader values of fairness, dignity and informed choice. In the modern contracting landscape, free consent should function as a substantive safeguard that ensures contractual relationships remain both legally valid and commercially just. 1. Tarsem Singh v. Sukhminder Singh, MANU/SC/0158/1998. [Para 2] ↑ 2. Chikkam Ammiraju v. Chikkam Seshamma, MANU/TN/0599/1916. [Para 3] ↑ 3. Subhash Chandra Das Mushib v. Ganga Prasad Das Mushib, MANU/SC/0069/1969. [Para 3] ↑ 4. Raghunath Prasad v. Sarju Prasad, MANU/PR/0018/1923. [Para 3] ↑ 5. S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu v. Jagannath, MANU/SC/0192/1994. [Para 3] ↑ 6. A. Ayyasamy v. A. Paramasivam, MANU/SC/1179/2016. [Para 3] ↑ 7. Allcard v. Skinner (1887) 36 Ch D 145. [Para 4] ↑ 8. Williams v. Walker-Thomas Furniture Co., MANU/UDCC/0035/1965. [Para 4] ↑ By Abhishek Paliwal, Partner https://ksandk.com/people/abhishek-paliwal/

Setting Up a Global Capability Centre (GCC) in India: Legal and Regulatory Framework

Introduction India has emerged as one of the world’s leading destinations for Global Capability Centres (GCCs), with multinational corporations increasingly establishing captive centres to manage global operations, technology development, research and development, finance, legal support, data analytics and business process management functions. Over the years, GCCs have evolved from cost-focused back-office operations into strategic hubs that drive innovation, digital transformation and enterprise growth. Government initiatives aimed at improving ease of doing business, strengthening digital infrastructure, fostering a skilled workforce and liberalising foreign investment have further accelerated GCC growth across major cities such as Bengaluru, Hyderabad, Pune, Chennai, Gurugram and Mumbai. However, setting up a Global Capability Centre in India requires careful navigation of a complex legal and regulatory landscape. Businesses must address corporate structuring, foreign investment regulations, employment laws, taxation, intellectual property protection and data privacy compliance before commencing operations. Choosing the Appropriate Business Structure One of the first decisions in establishing a GCC is selecting the appropriate legal structure. Most multinational corporations establish GCCs in India through a wholly owned subsidiary incorporated as a private limited company under the Companies Act, 2013. This structure offers a separate legal identity, limited liability protection, operational flexibility and greater ease in scaling operations. In certain cases, businesses may also consider forming a Limited Liability Partnership (LLP), depending on operational requirements and regulatory considerations. Other structures such as branch offices, liaison offices and project offices may be available for specific business purposes, subject to Reserve Bank of India (RBI) regulations. A private limited company remains the preferred model for most GCCs due to its flexibility, governance framework and ability to support long-term growth and expansion. Incorporation requires registration with the Registrar of Companies (RoC), obtaining a Permanent Account Number (PAN), Tax Deduction and Collection Account Number (TAN), Goods and Services Tax (GST) registration where applicable and compliance with ongoing corporate governance requirements. Foreign Investment and FEMA Compliance Foreign investment in GCCs is principally governed by the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 (FEMA), rules and regulations issued thereunder, and India’s Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) Policy. Most sectors commonly associated with GCC operations including information technology services, software development, business process management, consulting, research and development and shared services, permit up to 100% foreign investment under the automatic route, subject to applicable conditions. Where investment is made under the automatic route, prior government approval is generally not required. However, businesses must comply with mandatory reporting requirements prescribed by the Reserve Bank of India, including reporting of foreign investment through prescribed forms and filings. If the proposed GCC undertakes activities within regulated sectors, additional approvals or sector-specific conditions may apply. Accordingly, foreign investment structuring should be evaluated at an early stage to ensure compliance with applicable FEMA regulations and sectoral requirements. Data Protection, Cybersecurity and Cross-Border Data Transfers Data protection has become one of the most significant legal considerations for GCCs, particularly because many centres process large volumes of employee, customer and business data originating from multiple jurisdictions. The Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 (DPDP Act) establishes India’s data protection framework and introduces obligations relating to consent management, lawful processing, data security safeguards, grievance redressal and breach notification. GCCs processing personal data should implement robust privacy governance frameworks, internal policies and compliance mechanisms aligned with applicable legal requirements. Given the global nature of GCC operations, organisations must also carefully assess cross-border data transfer requirements and ensure compliance with both Indian and foreign regulatory obligations. In addition, businesses must comply with cybersecurity directions issued by the Indian Computer Emergency Response Team (CERT-In) and any sector-specific cybersecurity requirements applicable to their operations. As regulatory expectations continue to evolve, data governance and cybersecurity compliance should form an integral part of GCC planning and operational strategy. Employment and Labour Law Compliance Human capital is the foundation of any successful GCC. Consequently, compliance with India’s employment and labour laws is a critical aspect of establishing and operating a GCC. Relevant legislation includes: Code on Wages, 2019; Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952; Employees’ State Insurance Act, 1948; Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972; and Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013. While the Labour Codes have been enacted, businesses should monitor their phased implementation across jurisdictions and sectors. GCCs should also ensure that employment agreements contain appropriate provisions relating to confidentiality, intellectual property ownership, non-disclosure obligations, data protection, restrictive covenants (where enforceable) and dispute resolution mechanisms. Workplace policies relating to anti-harassment, employee conduct, whistleblower protections and information security should also be implemented to ensure legal compliance and organisational governance. Intellectual Property Protection and Technology Ownership Intellectual property considerations are particularly important for GCCs involved in technology development, software engineering, research and development, artificial intelligence and product innovation. Businesses should ensure that intellectual property created by employees, contractors and consultants is appropriately assigned to the GCC or its parent entity through legally enforceable contractual arrangements. Clear documentation regarding ownership of patents, copyrights, software code, trade secrets, databases and proprietary technology is essential to avoid future disputes. Cross-border technology transfer arrangements should also be reviewed to ensure compliance with applicable tax, foreign exchange and intellectual property laws. Given that many GCCs serve as innovation centres rather than purely operational support functions, a robust intellectual property strategy is often a key component of risk management. Taxation and Transfer Pricing Considerations Tax compliance remains one of the most critical aspects of GCC operations in India. GCCs are generally subject to the Income-tax Act, 1961 and the Goods and Services Tax regime, depending upon the nature of services provided. Because GCCs frequently provide services exclusively or predominantly to overseas group entities, transfer pricing compliance assumes particular significance. Transactions between the GCC and its foreign affiliates must satisfy the arm’s length principle and be supported by appropriate transfer pricing documentation. Another important consideration is Permanent Establishment (PE) risk. Multinational corporations must carefully structure GCC operations to avoid inadvertently creating a taxable presence for overseas entities in India beyond the intended operational framework. Businesses should therefore evaluate transfer pricing policies, inter-company arrangements, service agreements and operational control structures at the planning stage. While traditional tax incentives have reduced over time, organisations may still evaluate Special Economic Zone (SEZ) opportunities and state-level incentive schemes depending on their business objectives and location strategy. Conclusion India continues to strengthen its position as a preferred destination for Global Capability Centres due to its deep talent pool, mature technology ecosystem, strong digital infrastructure and business-friendly environment. However, successfully establishing a GCC in India requires more than operational planning. Businesses must carefully navigate corporate structuring, foreign investment regulations, employment laws, intellectual property protection, tax considerations, data privacy obligations and cybersecurity requirements. As regulatory expectations evolve, particularly in areas such as data protection, cross-border data transfers, labour compliance and transfer pricing, legal and regulatory compliance has become an essential component of GCC strategy. A well-structured legal and compliance framework not only reduces regulatory risk but also enables multinational corporations to fully leverage India’s rapidly expanding GCC ecosystem in a sustainable and commercially efficient manner. By Prithiviraj Senthil Nathan, Partner https://ksandk.com/people/prithiviraj-senthil-nathan-2/

Navigating GSTAT Appeals: Procedure, Pitfalls, and Practical Insights

Introduction The Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT) represents one of the most significant developments in India’s indirect tax dispute resolution framework since the introduction of the Goods and Services Tax regime in July 2017. Established under Section 109 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (“CGST Act”) and backed by the constitutional framework under Article 323B, the GSTAT serves as the second appellate forum in the GST hierarchy and functions as the primary fact-finding appellate authority under the GST regime.1 For several years following the introduction of GST, taxpayers faced considerable challenges due to the absence of an operational appellate tribunal, often compelling them to approach High Courts through writ petitions for relief. With the establishment and operationalisation of GSTAT benches, taxpayers now have access to a specialised forum designed to adjudicate GST disputes efficiently through a technology-driven and largely digital process. Understanding the GSTAT appeal procedure in India is therefore essential for businesses, tax professionals and litigants seeking to challenge adverse GST orders.2 Who Can Appeal and What Orders Can Be Challenged? Section 112 of the CGST Act permits any person aggrieved by an order passed by the First Appellate Authority under Section 107 or by a Revisional Authority under Section 108 to file an appeal before the GST Appellate Tribunal. This includes: Registered taxpayers challenging tax demands confirmed in first appeal. Businesses whose Input Tax Credit (ITC) claims have been denied, reduced or reversed. Taxpayers facing penalties under the CGST Act. Persons whose GST registration cancellation has been upheld in appeal. Exporters and businesses whose refund claims have been rejected or reduced. The tax department may also file appeals before GSTAT where it believes that an order passed by the First Appellate Authority is legally or factually erroneous. Orders Outside the Tribunal’s Jurisdiction However, certain categories of orders remain outside the Tribunal’s appellate jurisdiction. Section 121 of the CGST Act excludes appeals relating to transfer of proceedings, seizure or retention of books and documents, sanction of prosecution and payment of tax in instalments under Section 80. Importantly, orders passed by adjudicating authorities must ordinarily first be challenged before the First Appellate Authority under Section 107 before a further appeal can be filed before GSTAT. Pre-Deposit: The Most Critical Requirement One of the most important conditions for filing a GSTAT appeal is compliance with the mandatory pre-deposit requirement prescribed under Section 112(8) of the CGST Act. The purpose of the pre-deposit mechanism is twofold: To discourage frivolous litigation. To protect government revenue during the pendency of appellate proceedings. Currently, an appellant is generally required to: Pay 100% of the admitted tax liability; and Deposit a prescribed percentage of the disputed tax amount, subject to the applicable statutory limits. Taxpayers should carefully verify the latest statutory requirements and notifications applicable at the time of filing, as amendments relating to pre-deposit requirements have evolved over time. A particularly important procedural aspect is that the mandatory pre-deposit must be discharged in the manner prescribed under GST law. Taxpayers should also review applicable CBIC circulars governing adjustment of amounts already deposited pursuant to court orders or interim directions.3 Failure to comply with pre-deposit requirements can render the appeal defective and prevent it from being entertained by the Tribunal. Documents Required for Filing a GSTAT Appeal A complete appeal package is essential for ensuring that the appeal is admitted without procedural objections. Typically, the following documents are required: Show Cause Notice issued by the adjudicating authority. Order-in-Original. Order-in-Appeal being challenged before GSTAT. Statement of Facts. Grounds of Appeal. Proof of payment of mandatory pre-deposit. Authorisation letter, Vakalatnama or Power of Attorney, where applicable. Supporting documents relied upon by the appellant. For departmental appeals, the authorisation issued by the competent authority directing the filing of the appeal must also be enclosed. Proper indexing, pagination and document organisation are critical, particularly given the digital filing requirements under the GSTAT framework. Step-by-Step GSTAT Filing Procedure The GSTAT (Procedure) Rules, 2025 provide the procedural framework governing appeals before the Tribunal. Step 1: Verify Appeal Eligibility Before initiating the filing process, taxpayers should confirm: That the impugned order is appealable under Section 112. That no statutory bar under Section 121 applies. That limitation requirements have been satisfied. A careful review of jurisdictional and procedural requirements at this stage can prevent unnecessary filing defects. Step 2: Compute and Pay the Pre-Deposit The appellant should calculate the applicable pre-deposit requirement and ensure that payment is made in accordance with the prescribed procedure. Supporting challans and payment confirmations should be retained as these form an essential part of the appeal record. Step 3: Prepare Appeal Documents The appeal should include a well-drafted Statement of Facts and Grounds of Appeal. The Grounds of Appeal should clearly identify: Errors of fact. Errors of law. Procedural irregularities. Jurisdictional defects, if any. Supporting evidence should be properly organised and cross-referenced. Step 4: Register on the GSTAT Portal The GSTAT filing process is designed to operate through the designated online portal. Appellants, advocates and authorised representatives must register using valid credentials and complete authentication through Digital Signature Certificates (DSC) or other approved methods. Step 5: Upload and Submit the Appeal After selecting the appropriate appeal form, taxpayers must upload all supporting documents and complete the electronic filing process. Accuracy at this stage is critical because errors in uploaded documents may delay admission of the appeal. Step 6: Scrutiny and Acknowledgement The Registry reviews the appeal for procedural compliance and may issue deficiency notices where defects are identified. Taxpayers should closely monitor portal communications and promptly rectify any defects to avoid delays. Step 7: Service, Replies and Hearing Following admission, notices are issued electronically. The respondent is given an opportunity to file replies, after which the matter proceeds to hearing. Depending on the circumstances, hearings may be conducted physically, virtually or through hybrid modes. After completion of arguments, the Tribunal proceeds to pronounce its order in accordance with the applicable procedural framework. Practical Challenges and Emerging Issues Legacy Backlog of GST Disputes The absence of an operational GSTAT for several years resulted in a significant accumulation of pending GST disputes across the country. Many taxpayers were compelled to pursue writ remedies before High Courts, increasing both litigation costs and procedural complexity. Although GSTAT is expected to ease this burden, managing the volume of legacy disputes remains a substantial challenge. Technical Issues in E-Filing As with any large-scale digital platform, technical glitches and filing disruptions remain practical concerns. Taxpayers should maintain screenshots, filing logs and records of attempted submissions in case technical failures affect limitation compliance. Such records may prove useful if procedural disputes arise later. Acknowledgement and Filing Compliance Practitioners should carefully monitor the status of filings and ensure that all procedural requirements are completed successfully. Merely initiating the filing process may not be sufficient; appellants must ensure that the filing is duly processed and accepted in accordance with the applicable rules. Pre-Deposit Disputes Questions continue to arise regarding the computation of pre-deposit amounts, particularly where disputes involve interest, penalties or mixed demands. Judicial precedents on the scope of mandatory pre-deposit requirements continue to evolve and may significantly impact litigation strategy. Jurisdiction and Bench Allocation Given the multi-bench structure of GSTAT, determining the appropriate forum remains an important procedural consideration. Filing before an incorrect bench may lead to avoidable delays, even where transfer mechanisms are available. Constitutional Challenges Various aspects of the GSTAT framework, including issues relating to tribunal composition and appointments, have been the subject of constitutional scrutiny before courts. Although the Tribunal is now operational, taxpayers should remain attentive to future judicial developments that may influence the functioning of the appellate system. Conclusion The establishment of GSTAT marks a transformative step in India’s GST dispute resolution architecture. By providing a specialised appellate forum dedicated to indirect tax disputes, the Tribunal is expected to improve consistency, reduce reliance on writ proceedings and strengthen taxpayer access to justice. However, successfully navigating the GSTAT appeal process requires careful attention to statutory timelines, documentation requirements, pre-deposit obligations and procedural compliance. Even minor procedural lapses can result in delays or jeopardise the maintainability of an appeal. For taxpayers and practitioners alike, a thorough understanding of the GSTAT appeal procedure, filing requirements and emerging jurisprudence will be essential to effectively pursuing appellate remedies under the GST regime. As the Tribunal develops its body of decisions, it is likely to become the cornerstone of GST litigation and dispute resolution in India. By Vipin Upadhyay, Partner  https://ksandk.com/people/vipin-upadhyay/

Finality of Arbitral Awards and Judicial Intervention in India: Lessons from the Supreme Court’s Jabalpur Corridor Decision

Introduction Arbitration has emerged as the preferred dispute resolution mechanism for commercial parties seeking speed, confidentiality, technical expertise and finality. The success of any arbitration regime depends not only upon the quality of arbitral proceedings but also upon the willingness of courts to respect arbitral autonomy and limit judicial intervention. India’s arbitration framework, governed by the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“Arbitration Act”), is founded on the principle that courts should play a supervisory rather than appellate role. Over the past two decades, Indian courts have progressively moved towards a pro-arbitration approach by limiting interference with arbitral awards and reinforcing the finality of arbitral decisions. The Supreme Court’s recent decision in Madhya Pradesh Road Development Corporation Ltd. v. M/s Jabalpur Corridor Pvt. Ltd.[1] serves as another important reaffirmation of these principles. The judgment highlights the judiciary’s continuing commitment to preserving the finality of arbitral awards and preventing repeated challenges that undermine the efficiency of arbitration. The Principle of Finality in Arbitration One of the defining characteristics of arbitration is the finality of the arbitral award. Unlike traditional litigation, arbitration is intended to provide a conclusive resolution of disputes with limited avenues for challenge. This objective is reflected throughout the Arbitration Act. Section 5 expressly limits judicial intervention except where specifically provided under the statute. Similarly, Sections 34 and 37 establish narrowly defined grounds upon which arbitral awards may be challenged. The legislative intent is clear: courts are not expected to act as appellate forums reviewing the merits of arbitral decisions. Rather, judicial review is confined to exceptional circumstances involving jurisdictional defects, procedural irregularities or violations of fundamental legal principles. This approach is essential to maintaining commercial certainty and ensuring that arbitration remains a viable alternative to litigation. Evolution of Judicial Review under the Arbitration Act Indian arbitration jurisprudence has undergone a significant transformation. Earlier decisions often permitted broader judicial scrutiny of arbitral awards. The concept of “public policy” in particular became a frequent basis for challenges. In ONGC v. Saw Pipes Ltd.,[2] the Supreme Court expanded the scope of public policy review by introducing the concept of “patent illegality.” Although intended to prevent manifest injustice, the decision generated concerns regarding excessive judicial intervention. Subsequent judgments sought to restore balance. In Associate Builders v. Delhi Development Authority[3], the Supreme Court clarified the limits of judicial review and emphasised that courts cannot reassess evidence or substitute their own interpretation merely because another view is possible. A significant shift occurred in Ssangyong Engineering & Construction Co. Ltd. v. NHAI[4], where the Court narrowed the scope of public policy review and aligned Indian arbitration law more closely with international standards. Similarly, in Delhi Airport Metro Express Pvt. Ltd. v. Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd.[5], the Supreme Court reiterated that courts exercising jurisdiction under Section 34 are not appellate authorities and cannot re-evaluate factual findings reached by arbitral tribunals. Together, these decisions reflect a consistent judicial trend towards respecting arbitral autonomy and preserving the finality of awards. Why Excessive Judicial Intervention Undermines Arbitration Excessive judicial interference poses significant risks to the effectiveness of arbitration. First, it undermines the efficiency that parties seek when choosing arbitration over conventional litigation. If arbitral awards become subject to multiple rounds of judicial review, arbitration loses its commercial advantage. Secondly, prolonged litigation increases costs and delays enforcement, defeating one of the principal objectives of alternative dispute resolution. Thirdly, uncertainty regarding award enforcement can adversely affect investor confidence. Domestic and foreign investors often evaluate dispute resolution mechanisms when making investment decisions. A legal system perceived as allowing endless challenges to arbitral awards may discourage commercial investment and infrastructure development. Recognising these concerns, Indian courts have increasingly emphasised that arbitration must not be converted into another layer of litigation. The Jabalpur Corridor Case: A Reaffirmation of Judicial Restraint The Supreme Court’s decision in Madhya Pradesh Road Development Corporation Ltd. v. M/s Jabalpur Corridor Pvt. Ltd.[6] provides a recent illustration of these principles. The dispute arose from the termination of a concession agreement between Madhya Pradesh Road Development Corporation (MPRDC) and Jabalpur Corridor Pvt. Ltd. (JCPL). Following termination, arbitration proceedings were initiated and the arbitral tribunal awarded compensation to JCPL while holding the termination invalid. Over the course of nearly two decades, the dispute became the subject of multiple proceedings involving challenges to the tribunal’s jurisdiction and the validity of the award. One of the central arguments advanced by MPRDC was that subsequent developments in law warranted reopening the jurisdictional issue. The appellant also challenged the award of pre-award interest. The Supreme Court rejected these contentions and held that issues that had already attained finality could not be reopened merely because subsequent judicial developments altered the legal landscape. The Court also refused to interfere with the contractual rate of pre-award interest and observed that such matters generally fall within the arbitral tribunal’s domain. Most importantly, the Court criticised the prolonged litigation that had delayed enforcement of the award for nearly two decades. The Bench observed that arbitration is intended to facilitate expeditious dispute resolution and warned against repeated judicial interventions that frustrate this objective. In a particularly significant observation, the Court remarked that while arbitration has not failed in India, judicial interference has, on occasion, undermined its effectiveness. Implications for Commercial Parties and Investors The judgment carries important implications for businesses, investors and public authorities. First, it reinforces the principle that arbitral awards are intended to be final and binding, subject only to limited statutory review. Secondly, it discourages repetitive jurisdictional objections and procedural challenges designed primarily to delay enforcement. Thirdly, it provides greater certainty for investors involved in infrastructure, construction and public-private partnership projects where arbitration clauses are routinely used. The decision also strengthens India’s position as an arbitration-friendly jurisdiction by aligning domestic jurisprudence with internationally recognised principles of minimal judicial intervention. For government bodies and public sector entities, the ruling serves as a reminder that arbitration should not be treated as the starting point for prolonged court proceedings but as a legitimate and binding dispute resolution mechanism. Conclusion The principle of finality lies at the heart of every successful arbitration regime. While judicial oversight remains necessary to safeguard procedural fairness and legal legitimacy, courts must avoid transforming arbitral challenges into de facto appeals on merits. The Supreme Court’s decision in Madhya Pradesh Road Development Corporation Ltd. v. Jabalpur Corridor Pvt. Ltd. reinforces this philosophy by reaffirming that issues which have attained finality cannot be repeatedly reopened and that courts must exercise restraint when reviewing arbitral awards. As India continues its efforts to establish itself as a leading global arbitration hub, decisions such as Jabalpur Corridor play a vital role in promoting commercial certainty, investor confidence and effective dispute resolution. The judgment serves as a strong reminder that arbitration can succeed only when courts respect its fundamental promise: finality, efficiency and minimal judicial interference. https://indiankanoon.org/doc/95431872/ ↑ https://indiankanoon.org/doc/919241/ ↑ https://api.sci.gov.in/jonew/judis/42114.pdf ↑ https://indiankanoon.org/doc/95111828/ ↑ https://api.sci.gov.in/pdfdate/index1.php?filename=supremecourt/2019/3712/3712_2019_35_1501_29929_Judgement_09-Sep-2021.pdf&dno=37122019&dt=2021-09-09 ↑ https://indiankanoon.org/doc/95431872/ ↑  By Navod Prasannan, Partner https://ksandk.com/people/navod-prasannan/    

From Human Fault to Algorithmic Accountability: Tort Law in the AI Era

Artificial Intelligence (AI) is transforming the way decisions are made across critical sectors worldwide. This shift from automation to autonomy presents significant challenges for traditional tort law, which has historically been built around concepts such as human fault, foreseeability and direct causation. Introduction Unlike traditional software systems that operate according to predefined instructions, modern AI systems increasingly rely on machine learning and adaptive decision-making processes. These systems allow them to function with varying degrees of autonomy across sectors such as: Healthcare Transportation Finance Public administration Traditional tort principles evolved in an era where harmful conduct could generally be traced to an identifiable individual or entity. Today, however, many AI systems operate through complex algorithms whose decision-making processes may be difficult to understand even for their developers. The “black box” nature of artificial intelligence complicates efforts to determine fault, establish causation and assign legal responsibility. At the same time, the fragmented AI ecosystem, comprising software developers, data providers, hardware manufacturers and system deployers, further complicates liability assessments. As AI systems continue to exercise greater decision-making authority, legal systems worldwide are increasingly examining whether traditional tort law remains adequate to address AI-related harm.1 The Nature of AI and the Shift from Automation to Autonomy Understanding AI liability requires distinguishing between automated and autonomous systems. Automated vs. Autonomous Systems Automated systems operate according to predefined rules established by human programmers. When harm occurs, liability can generally be traced to programming errors, design defects or human oversight failures. Autonomous systems rely on machine learning and environmental inputs to generate decisions and adapt their behaviour over time. Their outputs may not always be directly predictable because they are based on probabilistic models rather than fixed instructions. This distinction has significant implications for legal liability because traditional tort law assumes a degree of predictability and human control that may not exist in autonomous systems. The Autonomous Vehicle Example The development of autonomous vehicles illustrates this challenge. The Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) classifies vehicle automation on a scale from Level 0 to Level 5. While Levels 0 to 2 require meaningful human supervision, Levels 3 to 5 increasingly transfer decision-making authority to the vehicle itself. Particularly difficult legal questions arise at the transition between Levels 2 and 3, where human operators remain legally responsible for intervention despite being largely disengaged from active vehicle control. This phenomenon has been described as the “human-machine interaction paradox,” where liability continues to rest on human actors even though critical operational decisions are made by autonomous systems. Tort Law and the Crisis of Traditional Liability Principles Traditional tort law allocates liability through doctrines such as: Negligence Strict liability Product liability These doctrines depend heavily upon concepts of human conduct, reasonable care and foreseeability. Artificial intelligence challenges these assumptions because harmful outcomes may result from algorithmic processes rather than direct human instructions. The Negligence Framework Under Strain The negligence framework is particularly strained because the traditional “reasonable person” standard was developed to evaluate human behaviour. AI systems, however, process information differently and often outperform humans in specific tasks. Some scholars have therefore proposed a “reasonable computer” standard, under which AI behaviour would be assessed against industry standards, accepted technological practices and comparable algorithmic systems rather than human conduct. Foreseeability in an AI Context Foreseeability also becomes more complex in the context of AI. Autonomous systems may achieve their intended objectives while simultaneously producing harmful unintended consequences. For example, a healthcare AI designed to optimise patient triage may incorrectly classify patients, resulting in delayed treatment or medical harm. While the precise outcome may not have been foreseeable, the broader risks associated with deploying autonomous systems may nevertheless be foreseeable to developers and operators. Causation and the But-For Test Causation presents an equally significant challenge. Tort law traditionally relies upon the “but-for” test, requiring claimants to demonstrate that the harm would not have occurred but for the defendant’s conduct. However, AI systems often operate through vast datasets, self-generated correlations and adaptive learning processes that obscure the causal relationship between human design decisions and resulting harm. As a result, victims may be able to demonstrate injury without being able to identify precisely which actor within the AI ecosystem caused the harm. The Black Box Problem and Evidentiary Challenges One of the most significant obstacles in AI liability litigation is the opacity of algorithmic decision-making. Many advanced AI systems, particularly those based on deep learning, do not generate outcomes through transparent rule-based processes. Instead, decisions emerge through multiple layers of internal computational processes that may be difficult or impossible for users, regulators or courts to fully interpret. This creates a substantial information asymmetry between AI developers and those affected by AI-generated decisions. Unlike traditional defective products, which can often be physically inspected and tested, AI-related claims may require access to: Proprietary source code Training datasets System logs Technical documentation Such information is frequently protected as confidential business information or trade secrets. Even where access is available, the non-deterministic nature of many AI systems may make it difficult to reproduce a particular outcome. Consequently, plaintiffs may struggle to satisfy evidentiary burdens relating to negligence, causation and defectiveness. These challenges have prompted increasing calls for greater transparency, explainability and documentation requirements for high-risk AI systems. The Fragmented AI Supply Chain Liability becomes further complicated by the fragmented nature of AI development and deployment. Responsibility may be distributed among multiple actors, including: Data suppliers Software developers Model trainers Hardware manufacturers Deploying entities such as hospitals, banks or transportation companies Traditional tort law generally seeks to identify a proximate cause and a responsible defendant. AI systems, however, function through interconnected technological contributions that blur traditional distinctions between creators, operators and users. This has led scholars and policymakers to explore alternative approaches such as joint liability, enterprise liability and risk-based allocation frameworks. Under such models, liability may be imposed on the entity best positioned to prevent harm, manage risks or compensate victims. The 2018 Uber Autonomous Vehicle Accident The 2018 Uber autonomous vehicle accident illustrates these difficulties. Although the vehicle’s systems detected the pedestrian before impact, technical design choices and disabled safety features contributed to the collision. Yet much of the legal scrutiny focused on the human safety driver rather than the broader technological and organisational factors that contributed to the incident. The case highlighted the continuing challenges associated with assigning responsibility for AI-enabled harm. Comparative Approaches to AI Liability Different jurisdictions have adopted varying approaches to regulating AI-related risks and liability. European Union The European Union has emerged as a global leader in AI regulation through measures such as the EU AI Act and reforms to product liability legislation. These frameworks adopt a risk-based approach and recognise that software and AI-enabled products may generate liability even where traditional product concepts are difficult to apply. The reforms seek to ensure that victims are not deprived of remedies simply because harm was caused by autonomous or self-learning systems. United Kingdom The United Kingdom has adopted a more flexible, principles-based approach. Rather than creating a single AI regulator, the UK relies on existing regulators to apply overarching principles within their respective sectors, including: Safety Transparency Accountability Fairness United States In the United States, AI regulation continues to develop primarily through litigation and sector-specific regulation. Courts have increasingly examined the extent to which manufacturers may be liable when users place excessive reliance on semi-autonomous systems. India India currently lacks a dedicated legal framework governing AI liability. Existing laws address certain aspects of technology regulation but do not comprehensively address liability arising from autonomous decision-making systems. These include: Consumer Protection Act, 2019 Information Technology Act, 2000 Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 However, India’s jurisprudence on strict and absolute liability may offer useful insights. The doctrine of absolute liability established in M.C. Mehta v. Union of India demonstrates the willingness of Indian courts to impose liability on enterprises engaged in inherently hazardous activities. While this doctrine was developed in an environmental context and does not presently apply to AI systems, some scholars have suggested that risk-based liability frameworks may provide a useful model for regulating high-risk AI applications. Conclusion The rapid advancement of artificial intelligence has exposed the limitations of traditional tort law principles developed for a world in which human actors exercised direct control over decision-making. Concepts such as negligence, foreseeability and causation remain foundational to civil liability, yet their application becomes increasingly complex when autonomous systems operate through adaptive and often opaque algorithms. The “black box” nature of AI, the fragmented technological supply chain and the growing autonomy of machine-learning systems have created significant accountability challenges. Victims of AI-related harm may struggle to identify the responsible party, establish causation or obtain access to the technical information necessary to prove their claims. Comparative approaches adopted by jurisdictions such as the European Union, the United Kingdom and the United States demonstrate a growing recognition that existing legal frameworks must evolve to address the risks posed by artificial intelligence. While India does not yet have a dedicated AI liability regime, existing principles of tort law, consumer protection and regulatory oversight may provide a foundation for future reforms. As artificial intelligence becomes increasingly integrated into critical sectors such as healthcare, transportation, finance and public administration, legal systems will need to develop frameworks that balance innovation with accountability. The future of tort liability for artificial intelligence will likely depend on creating mechanisms that ensure effective compensation for victims while promoting responsible development and deployment of AI technologies. By Dhruv Kaushal, Partner https://ksandk.com/people/dhruv-kaushal/

Supreme Court Settles the Limitation Question in Post-Award Proceedings: Section 33 Exception to the Running of Limitation Under Section 34(3) Applies Regardless of Maintainability or Outcome.

I. Introduction What happens if a party files an application under Section 33 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“the Act”) seeking correction of an arbitral award, does the limitation period for challenging the award under Section 34 run from the date of the original award, or from the date on which the Section 33 application is disposed of? The Hon’ble Supreme Court has now addressed this question with great clarity in National Highway Authority of India v. T. Younis & Anr. (2026 INSC 616) (NHAI v. Younis). The Court held that once an application under Section 33 is filed and entertained by the arbitral tribunal, the limitation under Section 34(3) runs only from the date of disposal of that application, regardless of whether the application was ultimately allowed, dismissed, or held to be outside the scope of Section 33. The judgment is significant as it offers significant clarifications for parties navigating post-award proceedings. II.  FACTUAL BACKGROUND OF THE DISPUTE: The dispute arose from a land acquisition proceeding under the National Highways Act, 1956 (“1956 Act”). A land parcel belonging to the first Respondent was acquired for highway development in Bellary District. After the competent authority determined compensation in 2011, the National Highway Authority of India (“Appellant/NHAI”) invoked arbitration under Section 3G(5) of the 1956 Act. The arbitrator passed an award in February 2013. The award was challenged and the High Court set aside that award in March 2019 and remitted it for fresh consideration. Following de novo proceedings, a fresh award was passed on 03.02.2022, granting the Respondent the benefit of additional market value and statutory interest under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (“1894 Act”). Both parties moved the arbitral tribunal under Section 33 of the Act within the prescribed period. NHAI filed an application under Section 33(1)(a) on 08.03.2022, contending that the grant of additional market value and interest under the 1894 Act was legally unsustainable and sought correction of the award on that basis. The Respondent No. 1 filed a cross-application under Section 33(4) on 10.03.2022, seeking an additional award for a claim that had allegedly been raised but omitted in the final award. By a common order dated 04.07.2022, the arbitrator dismissed both applications. The certified copy of that order was received by NHAI on 15.09.2022 and NHAI then filed applications under Section 34 on 29.10.2022 being within three months of receiving the disposal order, but well beyond three months from the original award date of 03.02.2022.   The Respondent objected on the grounds of limitation. The Principal District and Sessions Judge, Bellary condoned the delay by order dated 05.08.2023. The Respondent challenged this in a writ petition before the Karnataka High Court, Dharwad Bench. The High Court allowed the writ petition, holding that NHAI’s application under Section 33(1)(a) was not maintainable in the first place because it sought substantive modification of the award rather than correction of clerical or typographical errors and, therefore, could not extend the limitation period under Section 34(3). The High Court accordingly dismissed the Section 34 applications as time-barred. Accordingly, NHAI appealed to the Supreme Court. III. THE ISSUE BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT: The fundamental question before the Supreme Court was whether the limitation period under Section 34(3) commences from the date of the original arbitral award, or from the date of disposal of an application filed under Section 33 of the Act. Apart from the above issue, another subsidiary question arose from the High Court’s reasoning: does the benefit of the extended limitation period under Section 34(3) apply only to applications under Section 33 that are ultimately held to be maintainable, or does it apply to any application formally filed and entertained by the tribunal under Section 33? IV. ANALYSIS BY THE SUPREME COURT The Court’s analysis was primarily on the text of Section 34(3), that an application for setting aside an award may not be made after three months from the date on which the party received the award, “or, if a request had been made under section 33, from the date on which that request had been disposed of by the arbitral tribunal.” The Court noted that the language in Section 34 (3) draws no distinction between applications under Section 33 that succeed and those that fail. It does not say “if a valid request under Section 33 had been made,” nor does it say “if a maintainable request under Section 33 had been made.” The provision uses the word “request” without qualification. In view thereof, the Court noted that had the legislature intended to restrict the benefit to applications that were ultimately allowed or found to be maintainable, it would have said so expressly. The Court held that it could not read into a statute a restriction that the legislature had consciously chosen not to include. Supreme Court on the meaningful exercise of Section 34: The Court also addressed the practical dimension of the problem. The Court observed that once a Section 33 application is filed and entertained, the award remains within the limited jurisdiction of the tribunal for correction, interpretation, or supplementation. In that situation, it would be unreasonable and procedurally absurd to require a party to simultaneously file a Section 34 challenge “as a matter of abundant caution.” A party can meaningfully exercise its right under Section 34 only after the Section 33 proceedings have concluded because until then, the final shape of the award is not settled. The Court then dealt with the Respondent’s reliance on the case of State of Arunachal Pradesh v. Damani Construction Co. ((2007) 10 SCC 742), which the High Court had also cited in support of its view. It was noted that in State of Arunachal Pradesh, the party had not filed a formal application under Section 33 at all. It had merely written a letter that was, in substance, a request for review of substantive findings and certain ancillary clarifications that went beyond the contours of Section 33. The Court held that a letter seeking review cannot be treated as a request under Section 33, and on those facts, it was correct to hold that no fresh starting point of limitation arose. It was observed that the present case was completely distinguishable on facts. In the present case, formal applications under Section 33 was filed by both parties within the statutory period, the applications were entertained by the tribunal, and were disposed of by a reasoned common order. The Court observed that the said issue was no longer res integra and placed reliance on a line of its own earlier decisions including Ved Prakash Mithal and Sons v. Union of India (2018 SCC OnLine SC 3181), USS Alliance v. State of U.P. (2023 SCC OnLine SC 778), and most recently Geojit Financial Services Ltd. v. Sandeep Gurav (2025 INSC 1021) all of which had consistently held that the date of disposal of a Section 33 application marks the starting point of limitation under Section 34(3). V. Observations OF SUPREME COURT and THE Judgment Two specific observations of the Court are worth highlighting, as they have implications beyond the facts of this case. First, the Court addressed the concern that parties might file frivolous or sham applications under Section 33 purely to extend the limitation window for a Section 34 challenge. The Court did not ignore this risk. It made clear that where applications under Section 33 are found to be sham, frivolous, or mala fide, courts would be justified in imposing exemplary and punitive costs. Second, the Court rejected the argument that only a "valid" or "maintainable" Section 33 application can extend the limitation period. The reason being that whether a Section 33 application is maintainable is itself a disputed question, often decided only after months of litigation. In this very case, NHAI and the Respondent disagreed about whether NHAI's application sought a mere clerical correction or was actually a challenge to the merits of the award. If a party had to correctly predict, at the time of filing under Section 34, whether its earlier Section 33 application would eventually be held maintainable, it would be placed in an impossible position. The Court, therefore, held that what matters is whether the Section 33 application was formally filed and taken up by the tribunal, not whether it ultimately succeeded or was found to be maintainable. On the facts, the Court found that NHAI received the disposal order on 15.09.2022 and filed the Section 34 applications on 29.10.2022, which was well within the three-month period from the date of receipt of the disposal order. The applications were therefore within time. The Supreme Court accordingly set aside the High Court’s judgment and order dated 22.01.2024 and restored the order of the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Bellary dated 05.08.2023, which had condoned the delay. The Section 34 applications were directed to be decided on their merits in accordance with law. VI. Conclusion The judgment in NHAI v. Younis settles a question that had generated inconsistent outcomes across courts and tribunals notwithstanding the earlier line of decisions on the point. The principle that emerges is straightforward and builds on earlier decisions in Ved Prakash Mithal (2018), USS Alliance (2023), and Geojit Financial Services (2025), but takes the law a step further. Earlier, it was settled that a pending Section 33 application pauses the limitation period under Section 34(3). The Court has now made it clear that it does not matter whether the Section 33 application was maintainable, what it sought, or how it was eventually decided. If it was formally filed and taken up by the tribunal, the limitation clock stops. To guard against misuse, the Court makes clear that parties who file Section 33 applications merely to gain more time risk facing exemplary costs. The extended limitation window is meant to protect genuine litigants, not to serve as a delay tactic. For practitioners, the judgment offers clear guidance on both sides of the table. A party challenging an award should ensure that it files its Section 34 application within three months of receiving the order disposing of any Section 33 proceedings, and not from the date of the original award. Conversely, a party opposing such a challenge cannot defeat it on limitation grounds merely by arguing that the Section 33 application was not maintainable, as the Court has now foreclosed that argument as well. What it has not foreclosed is the argument that a Section 33 application was filed with mala fide for the sole purpose of buying time. Parties who rely on this extended starting point would be well advised to ensure their Section 33 applications are substantive and genuinely within the scope of the provision. What the judgment ultimately protects is the integrity of the process by ensuring that procedure serves justice, not the other way around. By Pragalbh Bhardwaj, Associate Partner  https://ksandk.com/people/pragalbh-bhardwaj/

Autonomy over Oversight: Why Independent Cooperative Societies Are Not “State” Under Article 12 and Why Their Elections Fall Outside Writ Jurisdiction

Introduction The intersection of cooperative society governance, constitutional law, and writ jurisdiction has been a subject of enduring judicial discourse in India. A recurring question before courts is whether cooperative societies — particularly those that operate independently of Government control — can be classified as “State” under Article 12 of the Constitution of India, thereby subjecting their actions to judicial review under Articles 32 and 226. Equally significant is the question of whether election disputes within cooperative societies can be adjudicated through writ petitions or whether aggrieved members must pursue the statutory remedies provided under cooperative legislation. The Supreme Court of India has recently addressed these questions and provided important clarifications that reinforce the principle of institutional autonomy for cooperative societies while upholding the primacy of statutory dispute resolution mechanisms for election-related controversies. Understanding Article 12: The Concept of “State” Article 12 of the Constitution defines “State” to include the Government and Parliament of India, the Government and Legislature of each State, and all local or other authorities within the territory of India or under the control of the Government of India. The expression “other authorities” has been the subject of extensive judicial interpretation, particularly in determining whether bodies such as public sector undertakings, statutory corporations, and cooperative societies fall within its ambit. The landmark decisions of the Supreme Court in cases such as Rajasthan State Electricity Board v. Mohan Lal (1967), Sukhdev Singh v. Bhagatram (1975), and R.D. Shetty v. International Airport Authority (1979) expanded the scope of “other authorities” to include bodies that function as instrumentalities or agencies of the Government. The test evolved further in Pradeep Kumar Biswas v. Indian Institute of Chemical Biology (2002), where the Supreme Court laid down a comprehensive framework to determine whether a body qualifies as “State” under Article 12. The Test for Instrumentality of the State The factors that courts consider in determining whether a body is an instrumentality or agency of the State include: Financial Assistance: Whether the Government provides substantial financial assistance to the body, such that the body is substantially dependent on Government funding for its operations. Government Control: Whether the Government exercises deep and pervasive control over the management, policies, and decision-making of the body, going beyond mere regulatory oversight. Public Function: Whether the body discharges functions that are closely related to governmental functions or are of public importance. Monopoly Status: Whether the body enjoys a monopoly status conferred by the State in a particular field of activity. Government Shareholding: Whether the Government holds the entire or dominant share capital of the body. Transfer of Government Department: Whether the body was created by transfer of a Government department or its functions. It is important to note that no single factor is determinative. The cumulative effect of all relevant factors must be considered to arrive at a conclusion on whether a body is an instrumentality of the State. Cooperative Societies and Their Legal Framework Cooperative societies in India are typically registered and governed under State-level cooperative societies acts, such as the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959, and similar legislation in other States. These statutes provide for the registration, management, election of committees, audit, and dissolution of cooperative societies. The societies are also subject to the regulatory oversight of the Registrar of Cooperative Societies appointed under the respective State acts. However, the mere fact that a cooperative society is registered under a State statute and subject to statutory regulation does not, by itself, make it an instrumentality of the State. Many cooperative societies operate as autonomous, member-driven organisations with their own bylaws, elected management committees, and independent sources of funding. Such societies are distinct from Government-controlled cooperative bodies where the State exercises substantial control over their affairs. The Supreme Court’s Clarification: Independent Cooperative Societies Are Not “State” The Supreme Court has now reaffirmed the position that independent cooperative societies — those that are not substantially financed, controlled, or functionally dependent on the Government — do not qualify as “State” under Article 12 of the Constitution. The Court’s reasoning rests on the following key principles: Autonomy of Cooperative Societies The Court has emphasised that cooperative societies are fundamentally voluntary associations of members formed for mutual benefit. Their autonomy in governance, including the election of their management committees, is a core feature of the cooperative movement. Subjecting all cooperative societies to the discipline of Article 12 would undermine this autonomy and blur the distinction between public bodies and private voluntary associations. Regulatory Oversight Is Not Control The Court has drawn a clear distinction between regulatory oversight by the Registrar of Cooperative Societies and deep and pervasive control by the Government. While the Registrar may exercise supervisory powers such as conducting audits, directing elections, or intervening in cases of mismanagement, these powers are regulatory in nature and do not amount to the kind of control that would transform a cooperative society into an instrumentality of the State. Financial Independence The Court has noted that many cooperative societies are financially self-sustaining, deriving their income from member contributions, business operations, and market activities rather than from Government grants or subsidies. In the absence of substantial Government financial assistance, the financial independence criterion weighs against classifying such societies as “State.” Absence of Public Function The Court has also observed that many cooperative societies engage in commercial activities for the benefit of their members — such as credit, housing, consumer, or agricultural cooperatives — which do not constitute public functions of the kind that would attract the application of Article 12. These activities, while socially beneficial, are essentially private in nature and driven by the members’ collective interests. Election Disputes and Writ Jurisdiction The second significant aspect of the Supreme Court’s ruling concerns the maintainability of writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution in relation to election disputes within cooperative societies. Statutory Remedies Must Be Exhausted The Court has held that cooperative societies legislation in most States provides a comprehensive mechanism for the resolution of election disputes. These mechanisms typically include the power of the Registrar to conduct or supervise elections, provisions for challenging election results before designated authorities or tribunals, and appellate remedies. The Court has emphasised that these statutory remedies are adequate and efficacious, and aggrieved members must exhaust them before approaching the High Court under Article 226. Writ Jurisdiction Is Not a Substitute The Court has cautioned that writ jurisdiction under Article 226 should not be used as a substitute for the statutory remedies available under cooperative societies legislation. The High Courts, while possessing wide powers under Article 226, should exercise restraint and decline to entertain writ petitions in election disputes where the legislature has provided a complete adjudicatory framework. Entertaining such petitions would not only burden the High Courts with matters better suited for specialised forums but also undermine the legislative scheme for cooperative governance. Exceptions to the Rule The Court has, however, acknowledged that there may be exceptional circumstances where writ jurisdiction may be invoked in cooperative society election matters. These include situations where the statutory authority has acted wholly without jurisdiction, where there has been a gross violation of principles of natural justice, or where the statutory remedy is inadequate or illusory. In such cases, the High Court retains its power to intervene, but only as a measure of last resort and not as a matter of course. Implications of the Ruling The Supreme Court’s clarification has several important implications for cooperative societies, their members, and legal practitioners: Protection of Cooperative Autonomy The ruling reinforces the autonomy of cooperative societies and shields them from being subjected to the obligations that apply to State instrumentalities, such as compliance with fundamental rights under Part III of the Constitution in their internal governance. This is significant for the cooperative movement, which thrives on self-governance and member participation. Channelising Election Disputes By directing election disputes to the statutory forums, the Court has ensured that such disputes are resolved expeditiously by authorities with specialised knowledge of cooperative law and governance. This also reduces the burden on the High Courts, which are already dealing with significant pendency of cases. Clarity for Legal Practitioners The ruling provides clarity to legal practitioners advising cooperative societies and their members on the appropriate forum for redressal of election-related grievances. It discourages the practice of directly filing writ petitions in the High Court and emphasises the importance of pursuing statutory remedies. Impact on Government-Controlled Cooperatives While the ruling protects independent cooperative societies from being treated as “State,” it does not affect the position of cooperative societies that are substantially financed or controlled by the Government. Such bodies would continue to be treated as instrumentalities of the State and would be subject to the obligations arising under Article 12. Conclusion The Supreme Court’s ruling is a welcome reaffirmation of the principles governing the classification of cooperative societies under Article 12 and the appropriate forum for resolution of election disputes. By distinguishing between independent cooperative societies and Government-controlled bodies, the Court has struck a balance between protecting cooperative autonomy and ensuring accountability where the State exercises substantial control. The emphasis on exhaustion of statutory remedies in election disputes is consistent with the broader judicial policy of respecting legislative frameworks and promoting specialised adjudication. King Stubb & Kasiva’s Litigation practice regularly advises cooperative societies, their members, and statutory authorities on governance disputes, election challenges, and constitutional issues. For further guidance on cooperative society law and related matters, please contact our team. By Sukrit Kapoor, Partner https://ksandk.com/people/sukrit-kapoor/

Supreme Court Clarifies Arrest in Private Complaint Cases: Why Police Cannot Arrest Without a Magistrate’s Non-Bailable Warrant

Introduction Can the police arrest an accused merely because a private criminal complaint has been filed before a Magistrate? Is anticipatory bail necessary after receiving summons in a complaint case? These questions have long created uncertainty among litigants and legal practitioners, particularly in jurisdictions where anticipatory bail applications became routine immediately after the institution of complaint proceedings. In a significant judgment delivered in Om Prakash Chhawnika v. State of Jharkhand (2026), the Supreme Court has clarified the legal position by reaffirming a fundamental principle of Indian criminal procedure: a private complaint does not, by itself, empower the police to arrest an accused. Unless the Magistrate simultaneously issues a non-bailable warrant (NBW) in accordance with the Code of Criminal Procedure (“CrPC”), the accused is only required to appear before the court in response to summons. The decision is an important reaffirmation of constitutional protections under Article 21 and the carefully balanced procedural safeguards governing complaint cases. It also addresses the growing practice of filing anticipatory bail applications in complaint proceedings where no legal apprehension of arrest actually exists. Complaint Cases and FIR Cases: Understanding the Difference One of the most common misconceptions in criminal law is the assumption that every criminal proceeding exposes an accused to immediate police arrest. The law, however, draws a clear distinction between police cases initiated through an FIR and private complaint cases instituted before a Magistrate. In an FIR-based prosecution involving cognizable offences, the police investigate the matter under Chapter XII of the CrPC and, subject to statutory safeguards under Sections 41 and 41A, may exercise powers of arrest where the circumstances warrant. Private complaints follow an entirely different statutory mechanism. Here, criminal proceedings originate directly before a Magistrate under Chapter XV of the CrPC without any police investigation being set in motion. The Magistrate not the investigating agency, retains control over whether criminal process should be issued. This distinction is not merely procedural; it reflects Parliament’s conscious intention to ensure that private complaints remain subject to judicial scrutiny before coercive measures affecting personal liberty are employed. The Statutory Scheme Governing Private Complaint Proceedings The CrPC establishes a structured process before any accused can be compelled to face trial in a complaint case. Upon receiving a complaint under Section 200, the Magistrate examines the complainant and supporting witnesses on oath. If additional verification is necessary, the Magistrate may postpone the issuance of process and conduct an inquiry or direct a limited investigation under Section 202. The object of a Section 202 inquiry is not to investigate guilt but to assist the Magistrate in determining whether sufficient grounds exist to proceed further. The inquiry acts as an important safeguard against frivolous, malicious or premature criminal prosecutions. Only after satisfying himself or herself that a prima facie case exists may the Magistrate issue process under Section 204. Even at this stage, the legislative framework clearly demonstrates that summons, not arrest, are the normal rule. A warrant may be issued only in exceptional situations contemplated by law. Section 87 empowers the court to issue a warrant only where there are recorded reasons demonstrating that the accused is likely to evade service or intentionally avoid judicial process. Consequently, coercive process remains the exception rather than the default mechanism. The statutory design therefore reveals an important principle: the purpose of complaint proceedings is to secure the accused’s appearance before the court not to facilitate custodial detention. Can Police Arrest During a Section 202 Inquiry? The Supreme Court’s judgment directly addresses another recurring source of confusion, whether police officers conducting an inquiry under Section 202 possess powers of arrest. The answer is unequivocally no. A Magistrate may seek police assistance during a Section 202 inquiry for limited purposes such as: verification of factual allegations; confirmation of addresses or identities; collection of preliminary material; or submission of an inquiry report. However, such assistance does not convert the inquiry into a police investigation under Chapter XII of the CrPC. Nor does it confer statutory powers to arrest the proposed accused. The distinction is crucial. At the Section 202 stage, the Magistrate has not yet concluded that sufficient grounds exist for issuing criminal process. Permitting arrest before such judicial satisfaction would defeat the very safeguards built into the complaint procedure. The Supreme Court rightly observed that police participation in a Section 202 inquiry remains subordinate to judicial supervision and cannot be expanded beyond the limited authority expressly granted by law. Constitutional Protection Against Unnecessary Arrest The judgment must also be viewed against the backdrop of the Supreme Court’s consistent jurisprudence recognising personal liberty as the cornerstone of criminal procedure. Article 21 guarantees that no person shall be deprived of personal liberty except according to procedure established by law. Over the past two decades, the Supreme Court has repeatedly cautioned against unnecessary arrests. In D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal, the Court prescribed procedural safeguards governing arrest and detention, emphasising accountability and protection against arbitrary exercise of police powers. In Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, the Court held that arrest is not mandatory merely because an offence is cognizable. Police officers must satisfy themselves that arrest is necessary and must record reasons demonstrating compliance with statutory requirements. More recently, Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI reinforced the principle that criminal procedure should ordinarily secure an accused’s participation through summons rather than incarceration. The Court emphasised that arrest should never become a routine procedural step divorced from its statutory necessity. The ruling in Om Prakash Chhawnika extends these constitutional principles into the context of complaint proceedings. Where the governing statutory framework itself does not authorise police arrest, courts must remain particularly vigilant against practices that unnecessarily curtail personal liberty. The Supreme Court’s Decision in Om Prakash Chhawnika The case arose from complaint proceedings initiated before a Magistrate in Jharkhand. During the pendency of the Section 202 inquiry, the accused approached the High Court seeking anticipatory bail due to apprehensions that they could be arrested. The High Court dismissed the anticipatory bail application while directing the accused to surrender before the trial court. The Supreme Court found this approach fundamentally flawed. Justice M.M. Sundresh observed that a practice had developed in certain jurisdictions particularly Bihar and Jharkhand where accused persons routinely filed anticipatory bail applications in complaint cases despite there being no legal power of arrest. The Court categorically held that: police officers conducting inquiries under Section 202 possess no authority to arrest the accused; issuance of summons merely requires the accused to appear before the Magistrate; arrest becomes legally permissible only where the Magistrate simultaneously issues a non-bailable warrant in accordance with the CrPC; and High Courts should refrain from directing accused persons to surrender while rejecting anticipatory bail applications in complaint proceedings, since such directions have no statutory basis. The judgment therefore restores the procedural balance intended by the legislature and prevents complaint proceedings from becoming instruments of unnecessary coercion. Why Anticipatory Bail Is Ordinarily Unnecessary in Complaint Cases One of the most significant practical consequences of the judgment concerns anticipatory bail. For several years, accused persons receiving summons in complaint cases often rushed to seek anticipatory bail out of fear of imminent arrest. This practice imposed unnecessary burdens on litigants and contributed to avoidable judicial workload. The Supreme Court has now clarified that such apprehensions are ordinarily misplaced. Where the Magistrate has issued only summons, there exists no statutory authority permitting police arrest. Since arrest itself is legally impermissible, the very foundation for seeking anticipatory bail is absent. This clarification is likely to reduce unnecessary anticipatory bail litigation while allowing courts to devote greater attention to cases involving genuine apprehensions of arrest. Practical Implications for Magistrates, Lawyers and Litigants The judgment carries important implications for every stakeholder in the criminal justice system. For Magistrates, it reinforces that summons should remain the primary mechanism for securing attendance. Non-bailable warrants should be issued only after careful judicial application of mind and in strict compliance with statutory requirements. For High Courts, the decision discourages routine directions requiring accused persons to surrender while disposing of anticipatory bail applications arising from complaint proceedings. For defence practitioners, the ruling provides greater clarity in advising clients who receive summons in private complaints. Unless accompanied by a valid warrant, receipt of summons alone should not ordinarily generate apprehensions of arrest. For complainants, the judgment preserves access to criminal remedies while ensuring that complaint proceedings remain consistent with constitutional guarantees of fairness and due process. More broadly, the decision strengthens judicial oversight over coercive criminal process and reaffirms that arrest cannot become a substitute for securing attendance before the court. Conclusion The Supreme Court’s decision in Om Prakash Chhawnika v. State of Jharkhand is an important reaffirmation of one of the foundational principles of Indian criminal procedure—that liberty cannot be curtailed unless authorised by law and supported by judicial application of mind. The judgment makes it abundantly clear that police cannot arrest an accused in a private complaint case merely because a complaint has been filed or a Section 202 inquiry is underway. Unless the Magistrate issues a non-bailable warrant in accordance with the statutory requirements, the accused is only required to respond to summons and participate in the proceedings. Beyond resolving a procedural controversy, the decision strengthens the constitutional commitment that criminal process should facilitate the administration of justice without becoming an instrument of punishment before trial. By reaffirming that summons are the governing rule in complaint proceedings, the Supreme Court has restored clarity to an area of law that had generated considerable confusion across several jurisdictions. For litigants, legal practitioners and courts alike, the message is unequivocal: the objective of criminal procedure is to secure the presence of the accused before the court, not to unnecessarily deprive individuals of their liberty where the law itself does not authorise arrest. By Abhishek Paliwal, Partner https://ksandk.com/people/abhishek-paliwal/

Supreme Court Stays Bombay High Court Order Releasing Thane Land from “Private Forest” Acquisition: Implications for Forest Land Classification, TDR and Development Rights

Introduction In a significant interim order impacting forest land disputes, urban development, and Transferable Development Rights (TDR) in Maharashtra, the Supreme Court has stayed the operation of the Bombay High Court’s judgment directing the release of approximately 193 acres of land at Manpada, Thane from acquisition under the Maharashtra Private Forests (Acquisition) Act, 1975. Although the Supreme Court has not decided the merits of the dispute, the interim stay is legally significant because it preserves the status quo in a matter involving competing claims of environmental conservation, statutory vesting of private forest land, municipal planning, and development rights. The proceedings are likely to have important consequences for landowners, real estate developers, municipal authorities, infrastructure projects, and government agencies dealing with forest land situated in rapidly urbanizing regions of Maharashtra. Background of the Dispute The dispute concerns whether nearly 193 acres of land situated at Manpada, Thane qualifies as “private forest” under the Maharashtra Private Forests (Acquisition) Act, 1975. The State’s Position The State of Maharashtra contends that the land vested in the Government upon commencement of the Act and forms part of a larger environmentally sensitive landscape adjoining or connected with the Sanjay Gandhi National Park. According to the State: Nearly 168 acres are already in Government possession; The land possesses ecological significance; Permitting its release would undermine forest conservation; and The consequent grant of development rights would irreversibly alter the character of the area. The Landowner’s Position The landowner, D. Dahyabhai & Co. Pvt. Ltd., disputed this classification, arguing that historical revenue records and the actual use of the land demonstrated that substantial portions had been utilised for cultivation, quarrying and other non-forest purposes well before the appointed date under the 1975 Act. The landowner therefore asserted that the statutory vesting provisions were inapplicable and that it remained entitled to development benefits, including Transferable Development Rights. Bombay High Court’s Decision The Bombay High Court upheld the order of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal directing release of the land from acquisition. The Court found that the State had failed to establish compliance with certain procedural requirements contemplated under the Maharashtra Private Forests (Acquisition) Act, particularly with respect to the statutory process relied upon for treating the land as private forest. The High Court also considered documentary evidence relating to historical land use and concluded that substantial portions of the property were being used for non-forest activities. As a result, the Court affirmed the release of the land from acquisition, thereby strengthening the landowner’s claim for Transferable Development Rights arising out of the surrender of land for public purposes. Supreme Court Grants Interim Stay The Thane Municipal Corporation challenged the High Court’s judgment before the Supreme Court by way of a Special Leave Petition. A Bench comprising Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice K. Vinod Chandran issued notice and stayed the operation of the High Court’s judgment pending further consideration. Although the order is purely interim in nature, it effectively restores the position existing before the High Court’s decision. Consequently: The release of the land remains suspended; Any consequential claim to Transferable Development Rights also remains in abeyance; and No irreversible development activity can proceed until the Supreme Court finally determines the dispute. The interim stay reflects the Court’s cautious approach where questions involving forest conservation and irreversible land-use changes arise. Legal Issues Before the Supreme Court The proceedings raise several important questions under environmental and property law. What Constitutes a “Private Forest” Under the 1975 Act? The dispute requires interpretation of the statutory definition of “private forest” and the circumstances in which privately owned land automatically vests in the State upon commencement of the legislation. The outcome will influence how similar lands across Maharashtra are classified where historical revenue records and present ecological characteristics point in different directions. Importance of Historical Land Use Another important issue concerns the evidentiary value of: Revenue records; Cultivation entries; Quarrying activities; Satellite imagery; Survey records; and Forest notifications. The case illustrates the recurring challenge of determining whether land should be classified according to its legal status on the appointed date or its present ecological condition. Procedural Compliance Under the 1975 Act The High Court attached significance to whether the statutory procedure prescribed under the Maharashtra Private Forests (Acquisition) Act had been properly followed before treating the land as vested in the State. The Supreme Court’s eventual decision may clarify whether procedural irregularities are sufficient to invalidate acquisition where ecological considerations strongly favour conservation. Impact on Transferable Development Rights (TDR) One of the commercially significant aspects of the litigation concerns Transferable Development Rights (TDR). Under Maharashtra’s planning framework, TDR often operates as a mechanism to compensate landowners whose land is surrendered or reserved for public purposes without immediate monetary compensation. However, entitlement to TDR depends upon the legal status of the underlying land. If the property ultimately continues to vest as private forest under the 1975 Act, the landowner’s entitlement to development rights may substantially change. The Supreme Court’s decision is therefore likely to influence future disputes involving forest land and TDR claims across the State. Environmental Conservation Versus Development Rights The litigation also reflects the continuing tension between environmental protection and urban expansion. Courts are increasingly required to balance: Preservation of ecologically sensitive areas; Sustainable urban planning; Legitimate expectations of private landowners; Infrastructure development; and Public interest in environmental conservation. The Supreme Court has repeatedly recognised through the T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad line of decisions that forest conservation cannot depend solely upon revenue classifications and that the expression “forest” may extend beyond its narrow statutory meaning where ecological considerations so require. The present proceedings may therefore have implications extending beyond the Maharashtra Private Forests (Acquisition) Act by contributing to the broader jurisprudence governing forest identification and environmental governance. Why This Judgment Matters Although only an interim order, the proceedings are important for several stakeholders. For Real Estate Developers: Projects involving land situated near protected forests or environmentally sensitive zones may face increased judicial scrutiny until the legal status of such land is conclusively determined. For Landowners: The case highlights the importance of maintaining historical land records, revenue entries and evidence demonstrating the nature of land use prior to statutory acquisition. For Municipal Authorities: The proceedings may affect future planning decisions involving acquisition, reservation of land, grant of development permissions and issuance of TDR certificates. For Environmental Governance: The litigation underscores the judiciary’s continued emphasis on preventing irreversible ecological consequences while legal disputes regarding forest classification remain pending. Key Takeaways The Supreme Court’s interim stay does not determine whether the disputed land is, in fact, private forest. However, it demonstrates judicial caution in disputes where development rights, environmental protection and statutory acquisition intersect. The final judgment is expected to clarify several important questions, including: The evidentiary standards for determining private forest under Maharashtra law; The extent to which procedural defects affect statutory acquisition; The relationship between forest classification and Transferable Development Rights; and The balance between ecological conservation and urban development. Given the growing number of disputes involving forest land on the outskirts of rapidly expanding cities such as Mumbai and Thane, the eventual decision is likely to become an important precedent in environmental, property and urban development law. Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) What is the Maharashtra Private Forests (Acquisition) Act, 1975? The Act provides for the acquisition and vesting of certain privately owned forest lands in the State to promote conservation and environmental protection. Why has the Supreme Court stayed the Bombay High Court’s judgment? The Court has granted an interim stay to preserve the status quo until it finally examines whether the disputed land was correctly released from acquisition under the 1975 Act. Can Transferable Development Rights (TDR) be granted if land is classified as private forest? The answer depends on the final legal status of the land. Since the Supreme Court has stayed the High Court’s judgment, any consequential TDR claim presently remains uncertain. By Adnan Siddiqui, Partner https://ksandk.com/people/adnan-siddiqui/

Supreme Court Clarifies That an Appointment “Until Further Orders” Does Not Create a Vested Right to Complete the Tenure

Introduction In an important judgment on service law and government employment, the Supreme Court has reaffirmed that an employee appointed for a fixed tenure subject to the condition “until further orders” cannot claim an enforceable right to continue for the entire tenure merely because the appointment order mentions a specified term. The decision is significant for government departments, statutory authorities, public sector undertakings (PSUs), autonomous institutions, and employees serving in tenure-based appointments. It clarifies how courts interpret appointment orders containing conditional tenure clauses and reiterates the limited scope of judicial review over administrative decisions concerning tenure curtailment. The judgment reinforces a settled principle of Indian service jurisprudence—that the rights of a public servant flow from the governing statute and the express terms of appointment, and courts cannot rewrite contractual or administrative conditions that were consciously accepted by the employee at the time of appointment. Background of the Dispute The appellant, a Senior Scientist with the Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR), was appointed in 1998 as Assistant Director General (Agricultural Research Information System).  The appointment order provided that: the appointment would be for five years or until further orders, whichever occurred earlier. During his tenure, the appellant alleged financial irregularities relating to procurement and project implementation. According to him, these disclosures resulted in retaliation by the authorities, culminating in the premature curtailment of his tenure and his repatriation to his substantive post of Senior Scientist in January 2001. The appellant challenged the decision before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) and subsequently before the Delhi High Court. Both forums rejected his challenge, leading to an appeal before the Supreme Court. Legal Issue Before the Supreme Court The principal question before the Court was: Whether a government employee appointed for a specified tenure acquires a vested legal right to continue for the entire tenure where the appointment order expressly states that the tenure is subject to “until further orders.” The answer to this question required the Court to examine the legal effect of conditional tenure clauses and determine whether such appointments create an enforceable right capable of judicial protection. Supreme Court’s Analysis The Bench comprising Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi upheld the decisions of the CAT and the Delhi High Court and dismissed the appeal. The Court observed that the language of the appointment order must be interpreted as a whole. Although the order mentioned a tenure of five years, it simultaneously reserved the employer’s power to terminate that tenure earlier through the phrase “until further orders.” According to the Court, this qualifying expression was not merely procedural or incidental – it formed an integral part of the appointment itself. Consequently, the employee accepted the appointment with the knowledge that the employer retained the authority to curtail the tenure before completion of the five-year period. The Court therefore held that the appointment order did not create any vested or indefeasible right to continue for the entire tenure. Understanding “Vested Right” in Service Jurisprudence A significant aspect of the judgment is its discussion on the concept of a vested right. In service law, an employee acquires an enforceable right only where: the governing statute guarantees a minimum tenure; constitutional protections are attracted; service rules confer a legal entitlement; or the appointment itself does not reserve any discretion to the employer. Where the appointment order expressly permits premature curtailment, continuation in office cannot ordinarily be claimed as a matter of legal right. The Court distinguished the present case from situations involving statutory tenure, where legislation expressly protects an office-holder from premature removal except through a prescribed statutory procedure.  Accordingly, the appellant’s appointment remained contractual and conditional in nature rather than statutorily protected. Limited Scope of Judicial Review The judgment also reiterates an important principle governing judicial review in service matters. The Supreme Court relied upon Deputy General Manager (Appellate Authority) v. Ajai Kumar Srivastava (2021) to reaffirm that courts exercising judicial review do not sit in appeal over administrative decisions. Instead, judicial intervention is confined to examining whether the decision suffers from recognised public law infirmities such as: arbitrariness; mala fides; violation of statutory provisions; procedural unfairness; irrationality; or punitive action disguised as an administrative order. Unless one of these recognised grounds is established, courts ordinarily will not interfere merely because another administrative decision may have been possible. The Court found that the appellant had failed to establish any such illegality or mala fide exercise of power. Whistleblower Allegations and the Court’s Approach The appellant argued that his tenure had been curtailed because he had exposed financial irregularities during his posting. While the allegations formed part of the factual background, the Supreme Court observed that no material had been produced demonstrating that the curtailment was vitiated by mala fides or constituted punitive action disguised as an administrative transfer. The Court therefore declined to infer retaliation merely because the tenure ended before completion of five years. The judgment illustrates that allegations of victimisation or whistleblower retaliation must be supported by credible evidence establishing a direct nexus between the protected disclosure and the administrative action complained of. Why This Judgment Matters The decision has important implications for public employment and administrative law. Appointment Orders Must Be Read Holistically  Employees cannot rely solely upon the stated duration of tenure while ignoring qualifying expressions contained in the same appointment order. Where words such as “until further orders,” “subject to administrative exigencies,” or similar reservations are incorporated, they substantially qualify the tenure itself. Conditional Tenure Is Not Equivalent to Statutory Protection The judgment draws an important distinction between: statutory tenure protected by legislation; fixed-term appointments; contractual appointments; and tenure appointments subject to administrative discretion. Each category attracts a different level of judicial protection. Judicial Review Remains Limited  The judgment reinforces that courts do not substitute their own opinion for that of the employer merely because an employee expected to continue for the full tenure. Interference is justified only where recognised grounds of judicial review are established. Importance for Government Employers  Government departments, autonomous bodies, universities, regulators, and PSUs should ensure that appointment orders clearly define: tenure conditions; circumstances permitting premature curtailment; administrative discretion; and applicable service rules. Carefully drafted appointment orders reduce ambiguity and minimise future service disputes. Key Takeaways The Supreme Court’s decision reinforces a long-settled principle of service jurisprudence: an appointment order must be interpreted according to its express terms. Where an employee accepts an appointment providing for a fixed tenure “until further orders,” the qualifying clause cannot subsequently be ignored to claim an absolute right to continue until expiry of the stated period. For employers, the judgment underscores the importance of precise drafting of appointment orders and tenure clauses. For employees, it serves as a reminder that the legal protection available in service matters depends not merely upon the duration of appointment but upon the governing statutory framework and the conditions accepted at the time of appointment. The ruling is therefore likely to serve as an important precedent in future disputes involving premature curtailment of tenure in government service and appointments within statutory and autonomous bodies. By Rohitaashv Sinha, Partner https://ksandk.com/people/rohitaashv-sinha/

Supreme Court Takes Suo Motu Cognizance of NCLT Delays: What It Means for Resolution Plan Approvals Under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code

Introduction In a significant development for India’s insolvency regime, the Supreme Court has taken suo motu cognizance of systemic delays by the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) in approving resolution plans under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC). The Court observed that prolonged pendency of resolution plan approval applications threatens the very objective of the IBC, which was enacted to provide a time-bound insolvency resolution process, preserve enterprise value, and maximise recoveries for creditors. The proceedings could have far-reaching implications for insolvency professionals, financial creditors, resolution applicants, distressed asset investors, and companies undergoing Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP), as they highlight structural shortcomings in the functioning of the NCLT and may pave the way for institutional reforms. Background The issue came before the Supreme Court while hearing appeals arising out of insolvency proceedings involving AVJ Developers (India) Pvt. Ltd. During the proceedings, the Court noted that although the Committee of Creditors (CoC) had approved a resolution plan in July 2024, the application seeking approval under Section 31 of the IBC continued to remain pending before the NCLT for an extended period. Recognising that the issue was not confined to a single case, the Bench directed the NCLT Principal Bench and the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (IBBI) to furnish comprehensive data regarding: the number of pending resolution plan approval applications; the duration of their pendency; and the reasons for such delays. The data revealed a concerning nationwide pattern rather than isolated administrative delays. Supreme Court’s Observations Upon examining the report submitted by the NCLT, the Bench comprising Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K.V. Viswanathan described the situation as “grim” and “dismal.” The Court noted that: 383 applications for approval of resolution plans were pending before various NCLT benches across the country; the period of pendency ranged from 48 days to approximately 738 days, with certain matters remaining pending for almost four years; and such delays fundamentally undermine the legislative purpose of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code. The Court emphasised that once the commercial wisdom of the Committee of Creditors has culminated in approval of a resolution plan, prolonged judicial delays erode the effectiveness of the insolvency framework. Accordingly, the matter was directed to be placed before the Chief Justice of India for consideration as a suo motu proceeding involving broader systemic reforms. Why Timely Approval of Resolution Plans Matters Under the IBC The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code is founded upon one central principle – speed. Unlike traditional recovery proceedings, the IBC seeks to preserve the value of distressed businesses by ensuring that insolvency proceedings conclude within prescribed timelines. While the Code originally contemplated completion of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process within 180 days, extendable to 330 days (including litigation), judicial delays at the stage of approval under Section 31 often extend the process well beyond the statutory framework. Such delays have significant commercial consequences: deterioration in the value of the corporate debtor; uncertainty for successful resolution applicants; reduced recoveries for financial and operational creditors; disruption of employee and supplier relationships; erosion of investor confidence in distressed asset acquisitions; and increased litigation costs. The Supreme Court has consistently held that time is the essence of the IBC, recognising that delays often destroy the economic value sought to be preserved through the insolvency process. Consistency with Earlier Supreme Court Jurisprudence The Court’s observations are consistent with earlier landmark judgments interpreting the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code. In Committee of Creditors of Essar Steel India Ltd. v. Satish Kumar Gupta, the Supreme Court emphasised that the IBC is designed to achieve speedy resolution, maximise the value of corporate assets, and balance the interests of all stakeholders. Similarly, in Ebix Singapore Pvt. Ltd. v. Committee of Creditors of Educomp Solutions Ltd., the Court observed that permitting uncertainty or prolonged delays after approval by the Committee of Creditors would undermine the commercial certainty upon which the insolvency framework is built. Likewise, in K. Sashidhar v. Indian Overseas Bank, the Court reaffirmed that while the commercial wisdom of the Committee of Creditors deserves judicial deference, the adjudicatory process must remain efficient to ensure that the objectives of the Code are realised. The present suo motu proceedings extend this jurisprudence beyond interpretation of statutory provisions and focus on the institutional capacity required to implement the Code effectively. Structural Challenges Identified by the Supreme Court The Court attributed the delays to broader structural deficiencies within the NCLT. Among the issues highlighted were: substantial vacancies in judicial and technical member positions; inadequate administrative infrastructure; frequent reconstitution of benches; reduced working capacity due to limited bench strength; growing backlog of insolvency matters; and procedural delays arising from numerous objections filed during approval proceedings. The Court observed that unless these institutional shortcomings are addressed urgently, statutory timelines under the IBC will continue to remain difficult to achieve in practice. Legal and Commercial Implications The Supreme Court’s intervention is likely to have implications extending beyond the immediate proceedings. The decision signals increased judicial scrutiny of institutional delays affecting insolvency adjudication and may accelerate reforms relating to: appointment of judicial and technical members to the NCLT; strengthening tribunal infrastructure; streamlining procedures for approval of resolution plans; reducing avoidable objections at the approval stage; and ensuring greater adherence to the timelines envisaged under the IBC. For lenders, insolvency professionals, distressed asset funds, strategic investors, and successful resolution applicants, the proceedings underscore that speed remains a critical component of value maximisation under the insolvency framework. The development also reinforces that delays occurring after approval by the Committee of Creditors can significantly impact transaction certainty, financing arrangements, employee retention, and implementation of revival plans. Key Takeaways The Supreme Court’s suo motu proceedings represent one of the most significant institutional reviews of the insolvency framework since the enactment of the IBC. Rather than addressing an isolated dispute, the Court has focused on a systemic issue that affects the efficiency and credibility of India’s insolvency ecosystem. The proceedings acknowledge that the success of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code depends not only upon robust legislation but equally upon adjudicatory institutions capable of delivering timely justice. If the concerns identified by the Court translate into structural reforms, the outcome may substantially strengthen India’s insolvency resolution framework, improve confidence among domestic and international investors, and restore the time-bound character that lies at the heart of the IBC. By Navod Prasannan, Partner https://ksandk.com/people/navod-prasannan/

The End of Piecemeal Challenges? Supreme Court Strengthens India’s Single-Challenge Approach to Arbitration

Introduction One of the principal advantages of arbitration is its ability to deliver a final and binding resolution without becoming entangled in the multiple layers of procedural litigation that often characterize traditional court proceedings. However, that objective can be undermined when parties repeatedly approach courts at various stages of the arbitral process, challenging interim decisions before a final award is rendered. Over the past decade, Indian arbitration jurisprudence has steadily evolved towards a model that discourages fragmented judicial intervention and encourages parties to raise all objections at the post-award stage. This approach reflects a broader legislative objective embedded within the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“Arbitration Act”) to ensure that arbitral proceedings progress efficiently and are not derailed by successive court challenges. In its recent decision in M/s. MCM Worldwide Private Limited v. M/s. Construction Industry Development Council[1], the Supreme Court has reaffirmed this philosophy by holding that a party cannot independently challenge an arbitral tribunal’s rejection of a jurisdictional objection under Section 16 of the Arbitration Act. Instead, such objections must ordinarily await the final award and be raised in proceedings under Section 34. While the ruling addresses a specific procedural question, its broader significance lies in strengthening what may be described as India’s emerging “single-challenge” approach to arbitration which is an approach that seeks to consolidate judicial review and minimize piecemeal litigation. Arbitration and the Problem of Procedural Fragmentation Arbitration was designed as an alternative to prolonged court litigation. Yet, arbitration can become equally inefficient if parties are permitted to challenge every procedural or jurisdictional determination before courts during the pendency of proceedings. Common examples include challenges relating to: Jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunal; Limitation and maintainability; Appointment of arbitrators; Admissibility of claims; Procedural directions; Interim determinations. If each of these issues became independently appealable, arbitration would lose many of its core advantages, including speed, efficiency, confidentiality, and cost-effectiveness. Recognizing this concern, modern arbitration statutes around the world seek to restrict judicial intervention during the pendency of proceedings. The Indian Arbitration Act adopts the same philosophy. The Legislative Policy of Deferred Judicial Review A defining feature of the Arbitration Act is that judicial review is generally deferred until after the arbitral tribunal has rendered its final award. The statutory framework reflects a deliberate legislative choice. Rather than permitting multiple challenges throughout the arbitration process, the Act seeks to consolidate objections and channel them into a limited post-award review mechanism. This policy can be seen across several provisions of the Act. Section 5 expressly limits judicial intervention except where specifically provided. Section 16 empowers tribunals to rule on their own jurisdiction. Section 34 provides a consolidated mechanism for challenging arbitral awards. Together, these provisions demonstrate a clear legislative preference: arbitration first, judicial review later. The Supreme Court’s Recent Clarification The dispute before the Supreme Court arose from a challenge to an arbitral tribunal’s rejection of a jurisdictional objection under Section 16. After the tribunal rejected the objection and proceeded with the arbitration, the aggrieved party sought judicial intervention before the final award had been rendered. The Supreme Court held that such an approach was inconsistent with the statutory framework. The Court emphasized that where a tribunal rejects a jurisdictional challenge, the arbitration must continue to its logical conclusion. Any objection regarding jurisdiction can subsequently be raised as part of a challenge to the final award under Section 34. Permitting immediate challenges at an intermediate stage would defeat the legislative objective of minimizing judicial interference and encouraging expeditious resolution of disputes. The judgment therefore reinforces the principle that parties should ordinarily await the outcome of arbitration before approaching courts. Why the Decision Matters Beyond Section 16 Although the ruling concerns jurisdictional objections, its implications extend much further. The judgment reflects an increasingly consistent judicial preference for procedural consolidation. Rather than allowing multiple court proceedings at different stages of arbitration, the courts are encouraging parties to aggregate their grievances and present them through a single challenge mechanism after the award is rendered. This approach serves several important objectives. Reducing Delay Arbitration proceedings frequently suffer delays when parties initiate collateral litigation during the pendency of proceedings. Deferring challenges until the final award stage helps prevent disruption and ensures that proceedings remain focused on resolution of the underlying dispute. Improving Cost Efficiency Multiple court proceedings increase legal costs for all parties. A consolidated challenge mechanism reduces duplication of effort and promotes more economical dispute resolution. Enhancing Finality The effectiveness of arbitration depends heavily on finality. Allowing repeated challenges at different procedural stages risks transforming arbitration into a prolonged multi-forum dispute. The Supreme Court’s approach preserves the finality that arbitration seeks to achieve. India’s Evolving Arbitration-Friendly Jurisprudence The judgment is consistent with a broader trend in Indian arbitration law. Over the last decade, the Supreme Court has repeatedly emphasized: Party autonomy; Limited judicial intervention; Respect for arbitral processes; Procedural efficiency; Enforcement of arbitral awards. Legislative amendments to the Arbitration Act have similarly sought to align India with internationally accepted arbitration practices. The objective has been clear: position India as a credible and arbitration-friendly jurisdiction capable of handling complex domestic and cross-border commercial disputes. The present ruling contributes to that objective by reducing opportunities for procedural obstruction. International Perspective The Supreme Court’s approach also mirrors developments in leading arbitration jurisdictions. International arbitration systems generally discourage fragmented judicial review during the arbitral process. Courts in jurisdictions such as England, Singapore, Switzerland, and France typically permit arbitral proceedings to continue even where jurisdictional objections are raised, reserving comprehensive judicial review for a later stage. This reflects a practical recognition that excessive court intervention undermines the efficiency and effectiveness of arbitration. By adopting a similar approach, Indian courts continue to align domestic arbitration law with global best practices. Strategic Implications for Commercial Parties The decision carries important lessons for businesses, lenders, investors, and parties engaged in arbitration. First, parties should recognize that jurisdictional objections remain important and should be raised at the earliest possible opportunity before the tribunal. However, they must also appreciate that unsuccessful objections may not result in immediate judicial review. Second, parties should adopt a long-term arbitration strategy rather than viewing procedural challenges as standalone litigation opportunities. Finally, businesses drafting arbitration clauses should understand that courts are increasingly inclined to allow arbitral proceedings to run their course before intervening. This reinforces the importance of carefully negotiated arbitration agreements and effective case management during proceedings. The Future of Arbitration Challenges in India The Supreme Court’s ruling may be viewed as part of a broader judicial movement towards procedural discipline in arbitration. As Indian arbitration law continues to mature, courts are increasingly focused on ensuring that arbitration remains a viable alternative to litigation rather than becoming a parallel form of litigation itself. The emphasis is shifting from procedural contests to substantive resolution. This trend is likely to strengthen confidence among commercial parties, foreign investors, and international businesses that choose India as a seat of arbitration or seek enforcement of arbitral awards within the country. Conclusion The Supreme Court’s decision is significant not merely because it clarifies the treatment of jurisdictional objections under Section 16, but because it reinforces a larger principle that has become central to modern arbitration law: arbitral proceedings should not be interrupted by piecemeal judicial challenges. By requiring parties to consolidate objections and raise them at the post-award stage, the Court has strengthened India’s evolving single-challenge framework and further advanced the legislative objective of minimizing judicial intervention. The judgment promotes efficiency, reduces procedural fragmentation, and reinforces arbitration’s role as a speedy and effective mechanism for commercial dispute resolution. For businesses and arbitration practitioners alike, the message is increasingly clear arbitration is intended to proceed first, and court challenges should ordinarily follow only after the tribunal has completed its work. https://indiankanoon.org/doc/75707947/ ↑ By Atul N. Menon, Partner  https://ksandk.com/people/atul-n-menon/

Cross-Border ESOPs in India: Legal, Tax and FEMA Considerations for Multinational Companies, GCCs and Global Workforces

Introduction Cross-border Employee Stock Option Plans (ESOPs) have become an increasingly important component of global compensation strategies. As multinational corporations, Global Capability Centres (GCCs), private equity-backed businesses and internationally expanding startups continue to grow their operations in India, employee participation in foreign equity incentive plans has become commonplace. Today, many Indian employees receive stock options, Restricted Stock Units (RSUs), performance shares and other equity-linked incentives from overseas parent companies incorporated in jurisdictions such as the United States, Singapore, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands and the UAE. While cross-border ESOPs can be highly effective in attracting and retaining talent, they also raise several complex legal and regulatory issues. Employers must navigate Indian foreign exchange regulations, taxation rules, employment law considerations, securities regulations and data privacy requirements while ensuring alignment with global compensation frameworks. What Are Cross-Border ESOPs? Cross-border ESOPs are employee equity incentive plans where the issuing entity and the employee are located in different jurisdictions. Typically, these structures involve: A foreign parent company issuing stock options to employees of its Indian subsidiary. An overseas holding company granting equity incentives to employees of an Indian operating entity. Global equity programmes covering employees across multiple jurisdictions. RSU-based compensation structures offered by multinational corporations. Cross-border equity compensation has become particularly common among: Global Capability Centres (GCCs). Technology companies. Venture-backed startups. Multinational corporations. Private equity-backed portfolio companies. Are Foreign ESOPs Legal for Indian Employees? One of the most frequently asked questions is whether Indian employees can legally receive stock options from foreign companies. The answer is generally yes. Indian employees may participate in employee stock option plans established by overseas parent companies, subject to compliance with applicable foreign exchange regulations, taxation requirements and corporate governance frameworks. However, employers should not assume that a globally adopted ESOP automatically complies with Indian regulatory requirements. Local legal review remains essential to ensure compliance with Indian law. Can Indian Employees Hold Shares in a Foreign Parent Company? Many multinational groups grant stock options or RSUs that ultimately result in Indian employees acquiring shares in the foreign parent company. Such arrangements are generally permissible under India’s foreign exchange framework, provided the programme complies with applicable regulatory requirements. Key considerations typically include: Nature of the equity award. Terms of the employee stock option plan. Method of acquisition. Exercise mechanisms. Sale and repatriation procedures. Reporting and documentation requirements. Employers should assess compliance obligations at the structuring stage rather than after implementation. What Are the FEMA Compliance Requirements for Cross-Border ESOPs? Foreign exchange compliance is often one of the most critical aspects of a cross-border ESOP programme. Questions commonly arise regarding: Acquisition of foreign securities by Indian residents. Payment of exercise prices. Overseas remittances. Sale of foreign shares. Receipt and repatriation of sale proceeds. Multinational employers and GCCs should ensure that their global equity plans are reviewed from a FEMA compliance perspective before launching them for Indian employees. Failure to properly evaluate foreign exchange implications can result in avoidable regulatory risks. How Are Foreign Company Stock Options Taxed in India? Taxation remains one of the most significant considerations for both employers and employees. Taxation at Exercise Generally, the difference between Fair Market Value (FMV) and Exercise Price may be taxable as a perquisite under Indian tax laws at the time of exercise. Employers may have withholding and reporting obligations depending on the structure of the arrangement. Taxation at Sale When employees subsequently sell the shares, capital gains tax implications may arise. The tax treatment may depend upon: Nature of the shares. Holding period. Tax residency status. Availability of treaty benefits. Applicable valuation rules. Given the complexity of foreign ESOP taxation in India, employees should seek professional tax advice before exercising or disposing of shares. What Is the Difference Between ESOPs and RSUs for Indian Employees? Many multinational corporations have increasingly shifted from traditional stock option plans to Restricted Stock Units (RSUs). While both serve as equity incentive mechanisms, they operate differently. ESOPs: Employees receive the right to purchase shares at a predetermined exercise price after vesting. RSUs: Employees generally receive shares upon satisfaction of vesting conditions without requiring a separate exercise process. RSUs often provide greater certainty for employees and are increasingly common among listed multinational corporations. From a legal and tax perspective, however, both structures require careful evaluation in the Indian context. Can GCC Employees Participate in Overseas ESOP Plans? Yes. Many Global Capability Centres operating in India offer stock options, RSUs and other equity incentives issued by overseas parent entities. Cross-border equity compensation is increasingly used by GCCs to: Retain key talent. Align employee interests with global business objectives. Promote long-term value creation. Compete for highly skilled professionals. However, GCCs frequently encounter additional challenges relating to: Cost recharge arrangements. Transfer pricing considerations. Tax withholding obligations. Global mobility of employees. Consistency between global and local compensation policies. How Are Cross-Border ESOPs Taxed for Mobile Employees? Internationally mobile employees often present the most complex taxation challenges. Consider the following scenario: Options granted while the employee is based in India. Employee relocates overseas before vesting. Shares are exercised while working in another country. Shares are sold after acquiring foreign tax residency. In such cases, multiple jurisdictions may seek to tax the same economic benefit. Important considerations may include: Residence-based taxation. Source-based taxation. Double taxation relief. Tax treaty provisions. Allocation of income across jurisdictions. As global mobility continues to increase, multinational employers should develop clear policies addressing these issues. Common Legal and Regulatory Risks in Cross-Border ESOPs Organisations frequently underestimate the complexity of international employee stock option programmes.  Some of the most common issues include: Assuming Global Plans Automatically Comply with Indian Law: A plan that works in the United States or Europe may require modifications for Indian implementation. Inadequate FEMA Review: Foreign exchange compliance should be assessed before rollout. Poor Employee Communication: Employees often remain unaware of taxation implications until exercise or sale. Failure to Address International Mobility: Cross-border taxation issues can become significant where employees relocate. Weak Documentation: Insufficient documentation can create disputes regarding vesting, exercise and termination rights. Ignoring Data Privacy Requirements: Cross-border transfer of employee information may trigger additional compliance obligations. Data Privacy and Cross-Border Equity Compensation The administration of modern ESOP programmes often involves substantial employee data processing. Information frequently shared across jurisdictions includes: Compensation details. Personal information. Tax records. Equity ownership information. Multinational companies should assess compliance with: India’s Digital Personal Data Protection framework. Internal privacy policies. Cross-border data transfer requirements. Employee consent and disclosure obligations. Data privacy considerations are increasingly becoming a core component of cross-border compensation compliance. Best Practices for Structuring Cross-Border ESOPs in India Employers implementing global equity incentive plans should consider: Conducting legal and regulatory reviews before launch. Assessing FEMA compliance requirements. Evaluating tax withholding obligations. Establishing clear employee communication programmes. Developing policies for internationally mobile employees. Reviewing transfer pricing implications. Periodically auditing compliance frameworks. Cross-border ESOPs should be treated as an ongoing governance exercise rather than a one-time implementation project. Frequently Asked Questions on Cross-Border ESOPs Can Indian employees receive stock options from a foreign company? Yes. Indian employees may generally participate in stock option plans established by overseas parent companies, subject to compliance with applicable foreign exchange, tax and regulatory requirements. Are foreign ESOPs taxable in India? Generally, taxation may arise both at the time of exercise and upon the subsequent sale of shares. Do GCC employees receive stock options from foreign parent companies? Yes. Many multinational GCCs use stock options, RSUs and other equity incentives as part of their compensation strategy. Do Indian employees need RBI approval to hold foreign shares under ESOPs? The applicable regulatory framework depends on the structure of the arrangement and should be evaluated carefully from a foreign exchange compliance perspective. What is the difference between ESOPs and RSUs? ESOPs provide a right to purchase shares at a predetermined price, whereas RSUs generally result in the issuance of shares upon vesting without a separate exercise process. Conclusion Cross-border ESOPs have become a critical component of global workforce compensation. As multinational corporations, GCCs and internationally expanding businesses continue to deepen their presence in India, participation by Indian employees in foreign equity incentive plans is expected to increase significantly. However, successful implementation requires careful consideration of FEMA compliance, taxation of foreign stock options, employment law issues, securities regulations, transfer pricing concerns and data privacy obligations. Businesses that proactively address these legal and regulatory challenges while maintaining commercially attractive incentive structures will be better positioned to attract, retain and motivate talent in an increasingly global workforce.

ESOPs in India: 20 Common Legal Mistakes Startups Make and How to Avoid Them

Introduction Employee Stock Option Plans (ESOPs) have emerged as one of the most effective tools for attracting, motivating and retaining talent in India’s increasingly competitive startup ecosystem. As startups seek to conserve cash while competing for skilled employees, equity-based compensation has become a critical component of employee reward structures. From early-stage ventures to unicorns and publicly listed companies, ESOPs are widely used to align employee interests with long-term business growth. However, despite their popularity, many startups fail to appreciate that ESOPs are not merely compensation tools, they are legal instruments governed by corporate, tax, foreign exchange and securities regulations. Improperly structured ESOP schemes can create significant issues during funding rounds, mergers and acquisitions, investor due diligence exercises, employee exits and public listings. Investors routinely scrutinise ESOP compliance, and defects in implementation can delay transactions, increase legal costs and result in unexpected liabilities. This article examines the twenty most common legal mistakes startups make while implementing ESOPs in India and outlines practical measures to mitigate legal and regulatory risks. What Is an ESOP? An Employee Stock Option Plan (ESOP) gives employees the right to acquire shares of a company at a predetermined price after satisfying specified vesting conditions. ESOPs are designed to: Retain key talent; Reward long-term contribution; Align employee and shareholder interests; Promote an ownership culture; and Reduce dependence on cash-heavy compensation structures. For startups, ESOPs often serve as a strategic alternative to higher salaries, particularly during early growth stages. Legal Framework Governing ESOPs in India For private and unlisted companies, ESOPs are primarily governed by: The Companies Act, 2013; The Companies (Share Capital and Debentures) Rules, 2014; Foreign Exchange Management Act (FEMA) regulations, where applicable; Income-tax Act, 1961; and Applicable accounting standards. Listed companies must additionally comply with SEBI regulations governing employee benefit schemes. Understanding these requirements at the outset is essential to avoid compliance failures later. 20 Common ESOP Mistakes Startups Make Creating an ESOP Pool Without Shareholder Approval A common misconception among founders is that a board resolution alone is sufficient to create an ESOP pool. Under the Companies Act, shareholder approval by way of a special resolution is generally required before granting employee stock options. Failure to obtain appropriate approvals may call into question the validity of grants and allotments. Key Takeaway: Ensure that both board and shareholder approvals are obtained before implementing the ESOP scheme. Using Generic ESOP Templates Without Customisation Many startups rely on publicly available ESOP templates that fail to address business-specific requirements. Generic plans often omit provisions relating to: Founder exits; Change of control transactions; Good leaver and bad leaver scenarios; Accelerated vesting; Buyback rights; and Liquidity events. Poor drafting frequently leads to disputes at critical stages of the company’s growth journey. Failing to Clearly Define Vesting Conditions Unclear vesting provisions are among the most common causes of ESOP disputes. Common issues include: Ambiguous performance criteria; Undefined milestones; Contradictory vesting schedules; and Unclear employment continuity requirements. Vesting conditions should be objective, measurable and clearly documented. Ignoring Good Leaver and Bad Leaver Provisions What happens when an employee resigns, retires or is terminated? Many ESOP schemes fail to address these scenarios adequately. A well-drafted ESOP policy should clearly define: Treatment of vested options; Treatment of unvested options; Exercise periods after exit; and Consequences of termination for misconduct. Poor ESOP Pool Planning One of the most common founder mistakes is creating an ESOP pool without understanding its impact on dilution. Improper planning can result in: Excessive founder dilution; Investor concerns; Fundraising complications; and Cap table imbalances. ESOP pool creation should always be integrated into broader capitalisation planning. Granting Options Without Reserving Adequate Shares Some startups grant options without ensuring that sufficient authorised and reserved share capital exists. This becomes problematic when employees seek to exercise vested options and shares are unavailable for allotment. Companies should periodically review authorised capital and ESOP reserves. Failure to Maintain Statutory Records Many startups focus heavily on granting options but neglect compliance documentation. Essential records include: Board resolutions; Shareholder resolutions; ESOP registers; Grant records; and Exercise records. Missing documentation frequently becomes a due diligence issue during fundraising and acquisitions. Inadequate Grant Letters An ESOP scheme alone is insufficient. Each employee grant should be supported by a detailed grant letter specifying: Number of options granted; Exercise price; Vesting schedule; Expiry date; and Applicable conditions. Poor documentation often leads to conflicting interpretations of employee rights. Ignoring ESOP Tax Implications One of the most frequently asked questions is: How are ESOPs taxed in India? Tax implications generally arise at two stages: Exercise Stage: The difference between the fair market value of shares and the exercise price may be taxable as a perquisite. Sale Stage: Subsequent appreciation may be subject to capital gains tax. Employees should be educated about these tax consequences at the time of grant. Misunderstanding Startup ESOP Tax Benefits Certain eligible startups may benefit from deferred taxation provisions relating to ESOPs. However, many companies incorrectly assume automatic eligibility without verifying statutory conditions. Companies should obtain tax advice before relying on such benefits. Overlooking FEMA Compliance Requirements Cross-border ESOP structures require careful legal review. Where employees are granted options in an overseas parent entity, businesses must evaluate: FEMA compliance; Reporting obligations; Pricing considerations; and Remittance requirements. Cross-border employee stock option plans should always be reviewed from a foreign exchange perspective. Ignoring Foreign Employee Requirements As startups expand globally, ESOP plans increasingly cover employees located outside India. Different jurisdictions may impose: Securities law obligations; Employment law restrictions; Tax reporting requirements; and Disclosure obligations. International expansion often requires local law review. Not Defining Post-Exit Exercise Periods What happens to vested ESOPs after an employee resigns? Many startups fail to specify a post-employment exercise window. Clearly defining exercise periods can prevent disputes and employee dissatisfaction. Failing to Address Mergers, Acquisitions and Corporate Restructuring Startups routinely undergo: Funding rounds; Acquisitions; Mergers; Group restructurings; and Holding company transitions. ESOP documents should clearly explain how options will be treated during such events. Ignoring Investor Rights and Funding Round Requirements Investors frequently negotiate specific protections relating to ESOP pools. Common provisions include: Pre-money ESOP pool requirements; Approval rights; Anti-dilution protections; and Governance controls. Failure to align ESOP planning with investment documentation can create transaction delays. Lack of Employee Liquidity Planning Employees value liquidity as much as ownership. Many startups create ESOP programmes without considering: Buyback opportunities; Secondary transactions; Tender offers; and Liquidity events. A well-designed ESOP strategy should address how employees may ultimately monetise their holdings. Inconsistent Allocation of ESOP Grants Inconsistent grant practices may create perceptions of unfairness. Companies should establish transparent criteria based on: Seniority; Role criticality; Performance; and Retention objectives. Consistency promotes trust and programme effectiveness. Poor Employee Communication Many employees do not fully understand: Vesting schedules; Exercise mechanics; Tax implications; Valuation concepts; and Liquidity opportunities. Regular ESOP education sessions can significantly improve employee engagement. Failing to Conduct ESOP Compliance Audits ESOP compliance should be reviewed periodically. Investors and acquirers frequently examine: Shareholder approvals; Grant validity; Cap table consistency; Allotment records; and Regulatory compliance. Periodic internal audits can identify issues before they become transaction obstacles. Treating ESOPs Solely as an HR Tool Perhaps the most significant mistake is viewing ESOPs purely as a compensation mechanism. ESOPs sit at the intersection of: Corporate law; Tax law; Securities law; Employment law; Fundraising strategy; and Corporate governance. Successful ESOP implementation requires coordination between legal, finance, HR and management teams. ESOP Compliance Checklist for Indian Startups Before implementing or reviewing an ESOP programme, companies should confirm: Board approvals obtained Shareholder approvals completed ESOP scheme legally reviewed Grant letters issued Cap table updated Statutory registers maintained Tax implications assessed FEMA implications reviewed Exit provisions documented Change of control provisions included Liquidity strategy considered Employee communications completed Frequently Asked Questions About ESOPs in India Can a Startup Grant ESOPs Without Shareholder Approval? Generally, no. Shareholder approval by special resolution is typically required under the Companies Act framework. What Happens to ESOPs When an Employee Resigns? The answer depends on the ESOP scheme. Most plans distinguish between vested and unvested options and specify a limited post-exit exercise period. How Are ESOPs Taxed in India? Tax generally arises at the exercise stage as a perquisite and again upon sale as capital gains, subject to applicable exemptions and rules. How Large Should an ESOP Pool Be? While there is no universal answer, startup ESOP pools commonly range between 5% and 15%, depending on hiring plans, growth stage and investor expectations. What Do Investors Review During ESOP Due Diligence? Investors typically review approvals, grant documentation, cap tables, dilution impact, vesting provisions and compliance with applicable laws. Conclusion Employee Stock Option Plans remain one of the most powerful tools available to startups seeking to attract and retain talent while building long-term enterprise value. However, the benefits of ESOPs can be significantly undermined by poor legal structuring, inadequate governance and regulatory non-compliance. As investor scrutiny increases and Indian startups mature, businesses must approach ESOP implementation with the same level of diligence applied to fundraising, governance and strategic transactions. A carefully structured ESOP programme not only enhances employee engagement but also improves investor confidence, facilitates smoother transactions and supports sustainable growth. By avoiding the common mistakes discussed above, startups can create ESOP frameworks that are legally robust, commercially effective and aligned with long-term business objectives. By Priyanka Kwatra, Director - Legal https://ksandk.com/people/priyanka-kwatra/

DPDP Act 2023: Director Liability, Board Responsibilities and Data Privacy Compliance for Indian Companies

India’s Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 (“DPDP Act”) represents one of the most significant regulatory developments affecting corporate governance, data privacy compliance and risk management in recent years. While many organisations initially viewed the legislation as a technology or legal compliance issue, the DPDP Act has rapidly emerged as a boardroom concern requiring active involvement from directors, chief executive officers, managing directors and senior management. Can Directors Be Liable Under the DPDP Act? As businesses increasingly rely on digital ecosystems, customer analytics, artificial intelligence, cloud infrastructure and data-driven decision making, the collection and processing of personal data have become central to commercial operations. Consequently, questions relating to DPDP Act compliance, director liability, board responsibilities and data breach management are becoming increasingly important for corporate leadership. One of the most common questions raised by boards and senior executives is whether directors can be held personally liable for violations of the DPDP Act. While the legislation primarily imposes obligations on organisations acting as Data Fiduciaries, directors and senior management cannot afford to treat data privacy compliance as solely an operational issue. The DPDP Act introduces a governance framework where privacy failures, inadequate oversight and weak compliance systems may create significant legal, regulatory, financial and reputational risks for organisations and their leadership. Why the DPDP Act Is a Board-Level Governance Issue Historically, privacy compliance was often delegated to legal, information technology or cybersecurity teams. However, the DPDP Act fundamentally changes the nature of data protection obligations in India. Data privacy is now closely linked with: Enterprise risk management; Corporate governance; Regulatory compliance; Cybersecurity preparedness; Investor confidence; Customer trust; and Business continuity. The legislation empowers regulators to impose substantial penalties for non-compliance. Depending on the nature of the contravention, penalties may extend up to INR 250 crore for certain violations. For large corporations, financial institutions, healthcare providers, technology companies, e-commerce platforms and multinational enterprises processing substantial volumes of personal data, the consequences of non-compliance can be significant. As a result, boards are increasingly expected to exercise oversight over data governance frameworks and privacy risk management programmes. DPDP Act Compliance Requirements for Companies The DPDP Act applies to the processing of digital personal data by entities that determine the purpose and means of such processing. These entities, referred to as “Data Fiduciaries,” are required to comply with several obligations, including: Providing clear and accessible privacy notices; Obtaining valid consent where required; Implementing reasonable security safeguards; Ensuring data accuracy where necessary; Facilitating data principal rights; Establishing grievance redressal mechanisms; Reporting personal data breaches; and Maintaining accountability throughout the data processing lifecycle. For organisations, compliance extends beyond drafting privacy policies. It requires a structured governance framework supported by technology, processes and executive oversight. Can Directors Be Personally Liable for DPDP Act Violations? A critical concern for boards is whether directors, CEOs and managing directors can be personally liable under the DPDP Act. Unlike certain regulatory statutes that expressly impose vicarious liability upon officers in default, the DPDP Act does not generally provide for automatic personal liability of directors for every violation committed by the company. The primary obligations under the Act are imposed upon the Data Fiduciary itself. Accordingly, regulatory penalties are generally expected to be imposed upon the organisation rather than individual directors. However, this should not be interpreted as providing complete insulation from risk. The absence of express statutory liability does not eliminate governance obligations or accountability expectations imposed upon directors under broader corporate law principles. Indirect Risks Facing Directors, CEOs and Managing Directors Although direct personal liability may not arise in every case, directors and senior executives face several forms of indirect exposure when significant privacy failures occur. Fiduciary Duty and Governance Obligations Under the Companies Act, 2013, directors are required to exercise due care, skill, diligence and independent judgment in carrying out their responsibilities. Where a significant privacy incident occurs due to inadequate oversight, regulators, shareholders and stakeholders may question whether the board discharged its governance responsibilities appropriately. In many cases, scrutiny focuses less on the occurrence of the incident itself and more on whether adequate governance mechanisms existed before the incident occurred. Regulatory Investigations A major personal data breach may trigger investigations by multiple regulators depending upon the industry involved. Apart from privacy-related scrutiny, organisations may also face examination from sector-specific regulators, consumer protection authorities, financial regulators and other governmental agencies. Senior management may be required to demonstrate that appropriate privacy compliance frameworks and cybersecurity safeguards were implemented. Shareholder and Investor Concerns Institutional investors increasingly assess cybersecurity and data governance risks when evaluating companies. A significant privacy incident may affect investor confidence, corporate valuation and governance ratings. As environmental, social and governance (ESG) considerations continue to evolve, data privacy is increasingly viewed as an important governance metric. Executive Accountability Globally, major cybersecurity and privacy incidents have often resulted in increased scrutiny of CEOs, CIOs, CISOs and other senior executives. Although liability may not necessarily be personal under the DPDP Act, executive accountability expectations continue to rise. DPDP Act Responsibilities of CEOs, Managing Directors and Senior Management Chief executive officers and managing directors occupy a particularly important position within the DPDP compliance framework. While privacy obligations may be operationally implemented by legal, compliance and technology teams, executive leadership remains responsible for ensuring that sufficient resources, oversight and governance mechanisms are in place. Following a significant data breach, regulators and stakeholders may ask: Was privacy compliance adequately funded? Were known vulnerabilities addressed? Were internal warnings ignored? Were cybersecurity safeguards proportionate to the risk? Was incident response planning effective? Were breach reporting obligations complied with? These questions inevitably place executive decision-making under scrutiny. Accordingly, CEOs and managing directors should treat data privacy as a strategic business risk rather than merely a compliance requirement. Board Responsibilities Under the DPDP Act Effective DPDP Act compliance requires active board engagement. Directors should ensure that privacy and cybersecurity risks form part of the organisation’s enterprise risk management framework. Key governance measures include: Establishing Board-Level Oversight Boards should periodically review: Data protection programmes; Privacy compliance frameworks; Cybersecurity preparedness; Regulatory developments; Vendor risks; and Data breach trends. Many organisations are increasingly assigning responsibility to Audit Committees, Risk Committees or dedicated Technology and Cybersecurity Committees. Implementing Reporting Mechanisms Management should provide periodic updates on: Compliance status; Security incidents; Vendor assessments; Privacy complaints; Regulatory developments; and Emerging technology risks. Meaningful reporting enables directors to make informed governance decisions. Approving Data Governance Policies Boards should ensure that organisations maintain documented policies governing: Personal data protection; Information security; Data retention and deletion; Incident response; Third-party risk management; and Employee awareness and training. Documented governance measures may prove important when responding to regulatory inquiries. Third-Party Vendor Risks Under the DPDP Act Many organisations depend on cloud service providers, payroll processors, software vendors, consultants and outsourcing partners. However, outsourcing a function does not necessarily outsource accountability. A privacy incident involving a third-party service provider may still expose the Data Fiduciary to regulatory scrutiny and reputational damage. Accordingly, organisations should establish robust vendor management frameworks incorporating: Due diligence procedures; Contractual safeguards; Security assessments; Audit rights; and Ongoing monitoring mechanisms. Third-party risk management is likely to become a key area of regulatory focus under India’s evolving privacy regime. Data Breach Response and Incident Management An organisation’s preparedness is often tested during a data breach rather than during routine compliance reviews. Boards should ensure that management maintains: Incident response plans; Escalation procedures; Internal investigation protocols; Regulatory notification mechanisms; Communication strategies; and Business continuity arrangements. The effectiveness of these measures may significantly influence how regulators assess an organisation’s compliance posture following an incident. DPDP Act Compliance Checklist for Boards and Corporate Leadership Boards and executive management should consider the following immediate action points: Conduct a DPDP Act Compliance Assessment Review existing practices relating to: Consent management; Privacy notices; Data retention; Security safeguards; Vendor oversight; and Data subject rights management. Create a Personal Data Inventory Identify: What personal data is collected; Why it is collected; Where it is stored; Who has access; and How long it is retained. Establish Accountability Structures Clearly allocate responsibilities across: Legal; Compliance; Information security; Human resources; Marketing; and Business operations. Strengthen Data Breach Preparedness Conduct tabletop exercises and periodically test incident response procedures. Review Insurance Coverage Evaluate cyber insurance, technology liability coverage and directors and officers insurance policies. Train Directors and Senior Management Privacy governance awareness should extend beyond operational teams and include board members and executive leadership. Frequently Asked Questions on Director Liability Under the DPDP Act Can directors be personally liable under the DPDP Act? The DPDP Act primarily imposes obligations on Data Fiduciaries rather than directors personally. However, directors may still face scrutiny regarding governance failures, oversight responsibilities and fiduciary duties where significant privacy incidents occur. Can a CEO be held responsible for a data breach under the DPDP Act? Although regulatory penalties are generally directed at the organisation, CEOs are expected to ensure that appropriate compliance programmes, cybersecurity safeguards and governance frameworks are implemented. What is the maximum penalty under the DPDP Act? Depending on the nature of the violation, penalties under the DPDP Act may extend up to INR 250 crore for certain contraventions. What are the key board responsibilities under the DPDP Act? Boards should oversee privacy compliance programmes, cybersecurity preparedness, vendor risk management, incident response planning and ongoing regulatory compliance efforts. What should companies do to prepare for DPDP Act compliance? Organisations should conduct privacy assessments, map personal data, strengthen security controls, review vendor arrangements, establish governance frameworks and train employees and management teams. Conclusion The Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 has transformed data privacy from a technical compliance issue into a critical corporate governance priority. While directors, CEOs and managing directors may not automatically incur personal liability for every violation, the DPDP Act creates an environment in which privacy governance failures can generate substantial regulatory, financial and reputational consequences. For boards, the question is no longer whether data privacy deserves attention. The real challenge is demonstrating that appropriate governance structures, compliance frameworks and oversight mechanisms are in place. As enforcement under the DPDP Act evolves, organisations that proactively integrate privacy governance into their broader risk management framework will be better positioned to navigate regulatory scrutiny, maintain stakeholder confidence and build long-term resilience in an increasingly data-driven economy. Authored by Dhruv Kaushal, Partner  https://ksandk.com/people/dhruv-kaushal/ Co-authored by Aniket Ghosh, Partner  https://ksandk.com/people/aniket-ghosh/

INSTITUTIONAL RULES CANNOT DILUTE STATUTORY CONFIDENTIALITY: DELHI HIGH COURT REAFFIRMS THE MANDATORY CHARACTER OF SECTION 42A CONFIDENTIALITY

I. INTRODUCTION Can an arbitral tribunal seated in India refuse to admit a document merely because it originated from a separate confidential arbitration? The Delhi High Court answered this question in JPC Infrastructure and Constructions Pvt. Ltd. v. Alstom Transport India Ltd. (O.M.P. (COMM) 124/2024). The Court held that the confidentiality mandate under Section 42A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ("the Act") binds arbitral tribunals seated in India, even where the arbitration is conducted under institutional rules such as the ICC Rules of Arbitration, 2021. The judgment clarifies that party autonomy exercised through institutional rules cannot dilute a statutory confidentiality obligation enacted by Parliament. II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND OF THE DISPUTE: The dispute arose from a sub-contract executed between JPC Infrastructure and Constructions Pvt. Ltd. ("Petitioner") and Alstom Transport India Ltd. ("Respondent") in relation to the Eastern Dedicated Freight Corridor Project. Under a Back-to-Back Sub-Contract Agreement dated 15.12.2015, the Petitioner was engaged for civil, electrical and allied works across fifty-five structures. Disputes arose over site access, project particulars and alleged delays, leading eventually to descoping of works and eventual termination of the contract by the Respondent. The disputes were referred to a three member Arbitral Tribunal under the ICC Rules of Arbitration, 2021. Before the Tribunal, the Petitioner sought to rely on a letter dated 07.06.2017 addressed by the Respondent to Dedicated Freight Corridor Corporation of India Limited (“DFCCIL”) in a separate arbitration between the Respondent and DFCCIL. The Petitioner contended that the letter contained admissions supporting its defence on delay and non-performance. The Respondent objected, contending that the letter formed part of confidential arbitral proceedings between the Respondent and DFCCIL and could not be relied upon in view of Section 42A of the Act. The Tribunal, by its Award dated 15.11.2023, sustained the objection and declined to admit the letter. The Tribunal found that the Petitioner had likely obtained the letter through counsel who had also represented DFCCIL in the related proceedings. The Tribunal accordingly rejected Claim Nos. 2, 3, 13 and 16, pertaining respectively to geotechnical investigations, topographical surveys, overhead costs and loss of profit. Notably, all counterclaims raised by the Respondent were rejected, and Justice J.D. Kapoor (Retd.) rendered a separate dissenting opinion on Claim Nos. 13 and 16. The Petitioner challenged the exclusion of the letter, and the consequent rejection of these four claims, under Section 34 of the Act before the Delhi High Court. III. THE ISSUE BEFORE THE DELHI HIGH COURT: The primary question before the Court was whether the Tribunal's exclusion of the letter dated 07.06.2017 on grounds of confidentiality under Section 42A of the Act was vitiated by patent illegality or perversity so as to warrant interference under Section 34 of the Act. A related question arose as to whether the confidentiality regime under the ICC Rules, said by the Petitioner to be discretionary in nature, diluted or overrode the mandatory confidentiality obligation under Section 42A once the seat of arbitration was in India. The Petitioner also argued that Section 42A merely imposes a “duty of confidentiality” and prescribes no consequence for its breach, and that a document otherwise relevant could not be rendered inadmissible on that ground alone. IV. ANALYSIS BY THE COURT The High Court began by noting the limited scope of interference available under Section 34 of the Act. It relied on the Supreme Court's decision in OPG Power Generation (P) Ltd. v. Enexio Power Cooling Solutions (India) (P) Ltd. ((2025) 2 SCC 417) for the settled tests governing patent illegality and conflict with the public policy of India. On the central issue, the Court held that Section 42A opens with a non-obstante clause and applies notwithstanding anything contained in any other law in force. It observed that confidentiality is one of the defining features of the arbitral process, and that the provision exists to preserve the integrity of that process. The Court rejected the Petitioner's contention that Section 42A merely creates an unenforceable obligation. It reasoned that reading the provision to carry no practical consequence would substantially erode the protection Parliament intended, and would reduce the statutory mandate to a formality devoid of effective content. Court on the interplay between institutional rules and statutory mandates: The Court examined the Petitioner's reliance on Article 22(3) of the ICC Rules, which merely enables a tribunal to issue directions concerning confidentiality upon request. It held that institutional rules operate within the framework of the governing statute, and cannot dilute or override an express legislative command contained in the Act. Court on party autonomy and the governing law of the seat: The High Court held that even though the arbitration was conducted under the ICC Rules, the seat of arbitration being in India meant that the arbitral proceedings remained subject to the mandatory provisions of the Act. It observed that institutionalised arbitral proceedings derive their efficacy from party autonomy, but operate subject to the governing law. The Court concluded that a statutory mandate enacted by Parliament cannot be “diluted, displaced or overridden” by rules framed by an arbitral institution. It held that the Tribunal was therefore fully justified in treating Section 42A as controlling and binding, irrespective of the more discretionary approach to confidentiality permitted under the ICC Rules. Court on relevance versus permissible use of evidence: The Court distinguished between the relevance of a document and its permissible use. It held that a party cannot claim an unrestricted right to rely upon evidence merely because it may support its case, irrespective of the circumstances in which the document was obtained. The Court found no jurisdictional error, patent illegality or perversity in the Tribunal first examining the permissibility of reliance before assessing evidentiary value. Mere production of a document in judicial proceedings: The Court also rejected the Petitioner's argument that the letter had entered the public domain merely because it had been referred to in separate proceedings before the Court. It held that mere production of a document in judicial proceedings does not automatically establish loss of confidentiality, particularly where the document originates from an arbitration protected by a statutory confidentiality obligation. On facts, the Court noted that the Tribunal had returned specific findings that the Petitioner's explanation for possessing the letter was unconvincing, and that the document had likely reached the Petitioner through counsel common to both proceedings. The Court held these to be findings of fact within the Tribunal's domain, and found no perversity demonstrated in them. V. OBSERVATIONS OF THE COURT AND THE JUDGMENT The Court observed that the Petitioner had not independently challenged the merits of the Tribunal's findings on Claim Nos. 2, 3, 13 and 16. The entire challenge rested on the exclusion of the single letter. Once the Court found no infirmity in the Tribunal's approach to that document, the foundation of the challenge fell in entirety. The Court also distinguished the Petitioner's reliance on Global Aviation Services Private Limited v. Airport Authority of India (2018 SCC OnLine Bom 233) and the Constitution Bench decision in In Re: Interplay Between Arbitration Agreements under Arbitration Act, 1996 and Stamp Act, 1899 ((2024) 6 SCC 1). It held that neither decision addressed the admissibility of evidence sourced in breach of arbitral confidentiality, and that the latter, properly read, reinforced the principle that a non-obstante clause must be construed to advance the legislative purpose underlying it. Finding no ground of patent illegality or conflict with the public policy of India, the Delhi High Court dismissed the petition and upheld the Arbitral Award dated 15.11.2023 in its entirety, with no order as to costs. VI. CONCLUSION The judgment in JPC Infrastructure v. Alstom Transport clarifies an important aspect of cross-arbitration confidentiality for parties operating under institutional rules with an Indian seat. The principle that emerges is that Section 42A of the Act operates as a mandatory, non-derogable obligation. It binds parties, counsel and tribunals alike, regardless of any more permissive confidentiality regime available under institutional rules chosen by the parties. For practitioners, the judgment carries practical significance in multi-contract projects where related disputes are frequently arbitrated in parallel or successive proceedings involving overlapping counsel. Documents or admissions obtained from one confidential arbitration cannot be freely imported into another, even where such material appears directly relevant to a party's case. Counsel acting across related arbitrations must be alert to the risk that possession of documents from one proceeding, however obtained, may attract the bar under Section 42A in a related but separate reference. What the judgment ultimately protects is the sanctity of the arbitral process. It ensures that confidentiality remains a substantive safeguard rather than a rule with no practical teeth. The decision also carries a broader lesson for arbitration lawyers acting on both sides of related disputes involving a common employer or principal contractor. Where the same counsel appears in successive or parallel arbitrations arising from a single project, care must be taken to preserve the separateness of each proceeding. An arbitral tribunal seated in India will not treat the flexible confidentiality provisions under institutional rules as a substitute for the mandatory statutory obligation under Section 42A of the Arbitration Act. Parties must accordingly structure their evidence strategy in compliance with this requirement. By Pragalbh Bhardwaj, Associate Partner https://ksandk.com/people/pragalbh-bhardwaj/

King Stubb & Kasiva Secures Decisive Ad-Interim Injunction for Allcargo Chairman Mr. Shashi Kiran Shetty in High-Profile ‘Ashirwad’ Malicious Falsehood Suit

In a significant victory protecting the fundamental right to privacy and dignity, law firm King Stubb & Kasiva (KSK) has successfully obtained a sweeping ad-interim injunction from the High Court of Judicature at Bombay on behalf of Mr. Shashi Kiran Shetty, Chairman of the Allcargo Group.   The decisive order, passed on 24th July 2026 by Hon’ble Justice Arif S. Doctor, restrains Scoopwhoop Media Pvt. Ltd. and several other media platforms from publishing, printing, or disseminating sensationalist content characterizing Mr. Shetty's family residence, "Ashirwad," as "cursed," "haunted," "ill-omened," or "unlucky".    The Background: Sensationalism vs. Privacy     The dispute centers around "Ashirwad," a property originally owned by the late Bollywood superstar Rajesh Khanna, which Mr. Shetty subsequently purchased. Although Mr. Shetty demolished the original structure and constructed a completely new home for his family's exclusive use, he chose to retain the historic name "Ashirwad".    Despite the complete reconstruction, various media entities continuously published articles, YouTube videos, and social media posts baselessly branding the new family home as "haunted" or "cursed". This relentless and false characterization was not only per se an occultist and a malicious falsehood, but it severely impinged upon Mr. Shetty and his family's fundamental right to live with dignity and privacy under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.    The Court’s Decisive Ruling     Finding the publications to be "wholly unjustified and in the nature of creating sensationalism," Hon’ble Justice Arif S. Doctor ruled that the material was prima facie defamatory. The Court noted that the articles plainly suggested the Plaintiff and his family were living in a haunted house, causing unwarranted harm for no fault of their own. Crucially, the Court observed that none of the responding media entities even attempted to justify or defend their offending publications.    The Bombay High Court granted immediate relief, issuing a mandatory injunction directing the defendants to forthwith take down all existing offending publications from their hosted URLs. Furthermore, during the proceedings, Defendant No. 4 (Rajshri Entertainment) voluntarily assured the Court that they would remove their offending video, demonstrating the immediate impact of the litigation.    The formidable legal strategy was spearheaded by Dr. Birendra Saraf, Senior Advocate, who powerfully argued the matter before the Court. He was instructed by a comprehensive King Stubb & Kasiva (KSK) team comprising:   Mr. Sukrit Kapoor, Partner,  Mr. Vipul Makwana, Senior Associate Mr. Aman Singhania, Associate 

Pradyun Chakravarty joins King Stubb & Kasiva with 16 members from various law firms to lead and strengthen Capital Markets practice

New Delhi, July 24, 2026: King Stubb & Kasiva, Advocates & Attorneys (“KSK”), has further strengthened its Capital Markets practice with the addition of Pradyun Chakravarty, who joins the Firm as a Partner along with a curated 16 member team in New Delhi and Mumbai. Pradyun will lead the Firm’s Capital Markets practice and will be based in New Delhi and Mumbai.Pradyun joins KSK from Legacy Law Offices, where he was a Partner. His arrival marks a significant expansion of the Firm’s Equity Capital Markets capabilities and adds substantial depth and scale to KSK’s broader Capital Markets offering.KSK already has an established practice across Debt and Equity Capital Markets. The addition of Pradyun and his team significantly enhances the Firm’s Equity Capital Markets capabilities and strengthens its ability to advise issuers, promoters, investment banks and other market participants on complex and high-value transactions.Pradyun brings extensive experience advising on equity capital markets transactions and related securities and regulatory matters. Under his leadership, the Capital Markets team will work closely with KSK’s Corporate and M&A, Private Equity, Banking & Finance and Regulatory practices, providing clients with an integrated offering across the transaction lifecycle.Commenting on the development, Jidesh Kumar, Managing Partner and Co-founder of King Stubb & Kasiva, said:“We are delighted to welcome Pradyun and his team to KSK. We have been steadily investing in building a strong and comprehensive Capital Markets practice, and Pradyun’s addition represents a significant step forward for us, particularly in Equity Capital Markets.KSK already has strong capabilities across the Capital Markets space, and bringing Pradyun and his team onto our platform gives us significantly greater depth, scale and execution capability. Pradyun has built an impressive practice and team, and we are confident that under his leadership, we will be able to further strengthen our position in this important area.This is a strategically important addition for KSK and reflects our continued focus on building specialist practices of scale. We are very pleased to have Pradyun lead our Capital Markets practice and look forward to working together to build a formidable offering for our clients.”Commenting on joining KSK, Pradyun Chakravarty, Partner and Head of Capital Markets at King Stubb & Kasiva, said:“I am delighted to join King Stubb & Kasiva along with my team and to have the opportunity to lead the Firm’s Capital Markets practice. KSK has built a strong national platform with established capabilities across Capital Markets and complementary transactional and regulatory practices, providing an excellent foundation on which to further build and scale the practice.India’s capital markets are entering an exciting phase, and there is a significant opportunity to build a practice that combines specialist expertise with the depth and resources of a full-service national platform. The combination of our team’s Equity Capital Markets experience with KSK’s existing capabilities across Capital Markets, corporate transactions, financing and regulatory matters creates a compelling proposition for clients.I look forward to working with Jidesh and my new colleagues across KSK to build on the Firm’s existing strengths and develop a market-leading Capital Markets practice.”The addition of Pradyun and a 16 member team forms part of KSK’s continued investment in strengthening its specialist transactional practices and building greater depth across key areas of corporate and financial law.KSK has more than 250+ professionals across its offices in New Delhi, Mumbai, Bengaluru, Chennai, Hyderabad, Pune & Kochi.

King Stubb & Kasiva Strengthens Mumbai Litigation Practice with the Addition of Partner Kaushal Parsekar

Mumbai, July 4th 2026: King Stubb & Kasiva ("KSK"), one of India's leading full-service law firms, today announced the appointment of Kaushal Parsekar as Partner in its Litigation and Dispute Resolution practice, based in Mumbai. The appointment reinforces KSK's commitment to expanding its dispute resolution capabilities and strengthening its presence in Mumbai, one of India's key commercial and judicial hubs.  Kaushal brings with him more than a decade of experience in litigation and dispute resolution, having advised and represented leading corporates, high-net-worth individuals, and regulatory bodies across a wide spectrum of commercial disputes. His practice spans commercial suits, including matters relating to declaration, specific performance, confidentiality, and non-solicitation; writ petitions and appeals; guardianship petitions; and domestic arbitrations, from the pre-arbitration stage through to enforcement and execution of arbitral awards. He has also represented government regulatory authorities, including the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI), in securities law litigation.  Commenting on the appointment, Jidesh Kumar, Managing Partner and Founder of King Stubb & Kasiva, said:  "King Stubb & Kasiva has been on a rapid growth trajectory, expanding our national footprint and deepening our capabilities across practice areas to meet the evolving needs of our clients. Kaushal's induction into our Litigation team in Mumbai is very much a part of that journey. His depth of experience across commercial litigation, arbitration, and regulatory matters, combined with his track record of advising marquee corporates and institutions, makes him a strong addition to the firm at an important stage of our growth. As we continue to scale, partners like Kaushal are central to our ability to deliver the calibre of advocacy and strategic counsel our clients expect. We are delighted to welcome him to the KSK family."  Speaking on his move, Kaushal Parsekar said:  “I am excited to join King Stubb & Kasiva at a time of significant growth for the firm. KSK has built an excellent reputation for providing practical, business-oriented legal solutions, and I look forward to contributing to the continued expansion of its Litigation and Dispute Resolution practice. Together with the talented team, I hope to deliver exceptional value to clients while further strengthening the firm's presence in Mumbai and across India." 
Content supplied by King, Stubb & Kasiva