India recognizes its own distinct pluralistic model of collective redress. The remedy of collective redress, while exercisable under different statutes, is unified by the representative principle of allowing a few to act on behalf of many. The principal sources of class action remedies under Indian law are outlined below.

Order I Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure (“CPC”), 1908 provides for representative suits, allowing one or more persons to litigate on behalf of others with the same interest. The CPC continues to serve as the default mechanism in civil disputes where no specialized regime applies.

Constitutional remedies also play a central role. Public Interest Litigation (“PIL”), developed through judicial interpretation of Articles 32 and 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (“Constitution”), enables any bona fide public-spirited individual to seek relief in matters involving broader public or constitutional rights. Unlike private law class actions, PIL is primarily concerned with systemic issues and public accountability rather than individual compensation.

In addition, different statutes provide tailored forms of collective redress. The Companies Act, 2013 (“Companies Act”) allows shareholders and depositors to bring class actions for oppression, mismanagement and fiduciary breaches. The Competition Act, 2002 (“Competition Act”) permits representative compensation claims following a finding of contravention. The Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (“CPA”) provides collective remedies through both adjudicatory and regulatory channels. Environmental collective redress is addressed under the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 (“NGT Act”), which provides broad standing to aggrieved persons and representative bodies, and empowers the National Green Tribunal (“NGT”) with wide remedial powers.

Overall, India’s collective redress framework is not consolidated under a single statute, but is dispersed across various private and public laws, depending on the nature of the harm.

The development of collective redress in India has been gradual and shaped by different legal and policy considerations over time.

Representative suits under the CPC provided the earliest foundation, designed to avoid multiplicity of proceedings involving common issues.

A significant shift occurred in the late 1970s and 1980s through constitutional jurisprudence. The Supreme Court of India (“Supreme Court”) expanded traditional rules of standing to allow public-spirited individuals to bring claims on behalf of affected groups. Decisions such as Hussainara Khatoon v Home Secretary, Bihar, 1979 AIR 1369 and S.P. Gupta v Union of India, AIR 1982 SC 149, and Bandhua Mukti Morcha v Union of India, AIR 1984 SC 302 established that access to justice is a fundamental concern and led to the development of PIL as a distinct mechanism for addressing widespread rights violations. This marked a move from procedural efficiency to substantive justice and state accountability.

The rise of economic liberalization and the expansion of regulated markets brought with it a higher potential for harm affecting large groups, particularly investors, consumers and market participants. In response, sector-specific mechanisms were introduced, including class action provisions under Section 245 of the Companies Act, and representative compensation claims under the Competition Act. The CPA further strengthened this approach by combining group complaints with regulator-led enforcement.

Across these stages, the focus has remained consistent i.e., improving access to justice, enabling claims for group harm, making processes more efficient, and ensuring accountability of public and private actors.

Class action litigation in India remains relatively limited in practice, and with no central repository for tracking such cases, frequency is assessed based on reported decisions.

Only a few shareholder class action cases have been filed under Section 245 of the Companies Act, including Manu Rishi Guptha v ICICI Securities Limited CP No 92/245/PB/2024 and Ankit Jain v Jindal Poly Films Limited CP No 58/245/PB/2024. While the former was withdrawn, the case of Ankit Jain remains pending before the National Company Law Tribunal (“NCLT”) and is expected to clarify key issues such as maintainability, procedural thresholds and the scope of relief. Despite a high volume of company law disputes otherwise handled by the NCLT each year, the recourse to Section 245 of the Companies Act remains limited.

A similar pattern is seen in competition law, where representative compensation claims can only be pursued upon a prior finding of infringement by the Competition Commission of India (“CCI”) and, to date, have not resulted in reported damages awards. In the consumer law space, while group complaints are permitted, large-scale issues are often addressed through regulatory action by the Central Consumer Protection Authority (“CCPA”), which has increasingly taken a proactive role in handling matters affecting consumers collectively.

By contrast, the most frequent forms of collective redress in India arise in the public law domain. PIL before the Constitutional Courts, and environmental proceedings before the NGT, are far more common and form the backbone of India’s collective redress landscape.

While private class actions in India remain relatively nascent, recent cases suggest increasing judicial and regulatory engagement with collective redress mechanisms, particularly in corporate and consumer matters.

Yes. Collective redress in India is closely linked to the nature of the rights being enforced, with certain Courts being more active than others.

In line with the broader trends discussed above, public law forums remain the most active. The Supreme Court and High Courts, through PIL, regularly address group-based claims involving environmental protection, labour rights, public health and governance issues. Similarly, the NGT has emerged as a specialized and frequently used forum for environmental and climate-related collective claims.

India does not have a single, uniform statutory definition of “class action” or “collective redress”. Instead, the concept of representative proceedings is defined through different statutes and legal frameworks, each using similar language to describe such proceedings.

Under Order I Rule 8 of the CPC, a representative suit allows “one or more persons” to sue or defend on behalf of others having the “same interest” in a suit, with the permission of the Court.

Under Section 245 of the Companies Act, a class action refers to an application by members or depositors on behalf of a class, seeking relief against the company, its directors, auditors or advisers for acts that are prejudicial to their interests, including claims for injunctions, declarations or damages.

Under Section 53N(4) of the Competition Act, one or more persons may apply to the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (“NCLAT”) on behalf of, or for the benefit of, other persons having the same interest, for compensation arising from anti-competitive conduct, following a finding of contravention by the CCI.

Under Section 35(1)(c) of the CPA, one or more consumers may file a complaint on behalf of, or for the benefit of, numerous consumers having the same interest, subject to permission of the relevant Consumer Commission.

In the environmental law context, the NGT Act permits “any person aggrieved”, including representative bodies or organisations, to bring proceedings involving substantial questions relating to the environment.

Separately, PILs under Articles 32 and 226 of the Constitution allow any public-spirited person to seek relief in matters affecting the public at large, although this operates as a distinct form of collective redress focused on enforcement of rights rather than private compensation.

Taken together, these provisions reflect a consistent underlying idea: a representative claimant acts on behalf of a defined or identifiable group sharing a common interest, and the outcome is capable of binding the group, subject to procedural safeguards.

Collective redress is typically triggered where multiple persons are affected by the same underlying conduct or transaction, giving rise to a common set of facts or legal issues.

Under the Companies Act, this often arises from allegations of oppression, mismanagement, misleading disclosures, or breach of fiduciary duties, impacting shareholders or depositors collectively. In competition law, the trigger is more structured, as compensation proceedings can be brought only after a prior finding of contravention by the CCI, such as in cases involving cartelization or abuse of dominance.

In the consumer law space, collective actions are commonly triggered by defective goods, deficiency in services, unfair trade practices, or misleading advertisements, particularly where a large number of consumers are similarly affected, including in digital and e-commerce markets.

Environmental proceedings are typically initiated in response to pollution, environmental degradation, or non-compliance with environmental laws, often affecting communities or regions rather than individually identified claimants.

In public law, particularly PIL, proceedings may be triggered by violation of fundamental rights, failure of public duties, or broader issues of public interest, even where affected persons are unable to approach the Court directly.

The interaction between collective redress proceedings and regulatory enforcement is sector-specific, with regulators often playing a central role in identifying and addressing group harm.

In competition law, the relationship is structured and sequential. Claims for compensation before the NCLAT are follow-on actions and can be pursued only after a finding of contravention by the CCI.

In the securities law space, while there is no formal class action regime, enforcement actions and findings by the Securities and Exchange Board of India (“SEBI”) often form the basis for investor-led proceedings or are supported through mechanisms such as the Investor Protection and Education Fund.

In consumer protection law, the CCPA acts as a primary enforcement body with wide powers, including ordering recalls, refunds and penalties. In practice, this allows regulatory action itself to function as a form of collective redress, sometimes reducing the need for separate private proceedings.

In environmental law matters, regulatory reports and compliance findings are frequently relied on in proceedings before the NGT. At the same time, the NGT, as well as Constitutional Courts, also initiate proceedings independently, including through suo motu action, particularly in cases of widespread environmental harm.

The causes of action for invoking the remedy of collective redress in India are broad and depend on the nature of the harm alleged, and the rights sought to be enforced.

Order I Rule 8 of the CPC permits representative suits in civil and commercial matters wherever numerous persons share the same interest. This allows collective claims in cases involving property disputes, contractual breaches, trust matters and other civil wrongs. In public law, PIL jurisdiction enables collective redress in cases involving violation of fundamental rights, including labour exploitation, environmental harm, public health issues and administrative illegality.

Under the Companies Act, class action commonly arises in cases involving oppression, mismanagement, breach of fiduciary duties, misleading disclosures, diversion or misuse of funds, audit failures and other conduct prejudicial to shareholders or depositors.

Under the competition law regime, claims for compensation may arise from cartelization, abuse of dominance or other anti-competitive conduct, subject to a prior finding of contravention by the CCI.

In the consumer law space, collective claims are commonly based on defective goods, deficiency in services, unfair trade practices, misleading advertisements and unsafe products, including those arising in digital and e-commerce markets.

Environmental proceedings before the NGT typically arise from pollution, ecological damage, non-compliance with environmental regulations, and issues relating to environmental clearances or resource use, often affecting communities or regions.

Across these frameworks, the underlying basis remains the existence of a common course of conduct resulting in similar harm to a group of persons, which can be addressed through a representative or collective proceeding.

Yes. The availability of collective redress in India is shaped by both the nature of the claim and the statutory framework invoked.

A primary constraint is the requirement of a common or shared interest. Under Order I Rule 8 of the CPC, representative suits can proceed only where the parties have the “same interest” in the litigation. This makes the mechanism unsuitable where claims depend on individual contracts, varying factual circumstances, or distinct measures of loss.

Similarly, Section 245 of the Companies Act is limited to actions involving conduct that is prejudicial to the company, its members or depositors. It does not extend to all stakeholders (such as creditors or third parties), and is expressly inapplicable to banking companies.

Competition law imposes a more structural limitation. Collective compensation claims under Section 53N of the Competition Act are contingent on a prior finding of contravention by the CCI. As a result, standalone or parallel damages claims cannot be initiated independently.

In the consumer law framework, the scope is narrowed by the statutory definition of a “consumer” under the CPA. Persons purchasing goods for resale or for commercial purposes, or availing services for commercial use, are excluded. This effectively limits collective consumer actions to end-users and excludes business-to-business disputes.

Environmental and public law proceedings are comparatively broader in scope, but even here, Courts require that the issue raised concerns a substantial question affecting a class or community, rather than isolated or private disputes.

These limitations underscore that collective redress is subject to defined statutory boundaries in addition to requiring a degree of commonality.

Legal standing to initiate collective proceedings is determined by the applicable statutory framework, with each regime prescribing who may represent the class and on what basis.

In public law, standing is deliberately broad. The Supreme Court and High Courts permit any bona fide public-spirited individual or organisation to initiate PILs, particularly where affected persons are unable to approach the Court themselves.

In contrast, statutory mechanisms adopt defined eligibility criteria. Under Section 245 of the Companies Act, only members or depositors meeting prescribed numerical or shareholding thresholds may initiate class actions. This excludes other stakeholders such as creditors or third parties, even if affected by the same conduct.

Under the CPA, only persons falling within the statutory definition of a “consumer” (i.e., those not acting for commercial purposes) can initiate such proceedings.

The NGT Act adopts a wider approach, allowing “any person aggrieved”, including representative bodies or organizations, to bring environmental claims.

Under the Competition Act, one or more persons may seek compensation on behalf of others with the same interest, but only after a finding of contravention and subject to the procedural requirements of the NCLAT.

Taken together, legal standing in India is context-specific, ranging from broad public interest standing to more structured, threshold-based eligibility in statutory regimes.

There are no express nationality or domicile restrictions under India’s collective redress framework. The relevant provisions focus on the claimant’s connection to the dispute rather than citizenship or residence.

For example, Order I Rule 8 of the CPC requires a “same interest” in the proceeding; Section 245 of the Companies Act applies to qualifying members or depositors; the CPA is limited to persons meeting the definition of “consumer”; and the NGT Act permits claims by “any person aggrieved”. None of these provisions restrict participation to Indian nationals.

Accordingly, foreign claimants are not barred, provided they meet the legal/statutory standing requirements.

Indian law does not prescribe a uniform class size across all forms of collective redress. However, certain statutes do impose specific numerical thresholds, while others rely on the existence of a common interest or shared grievance.

Section 245 of the Companies Act prescribes numerical and shareholding thresholds for class action. Actions can be brought only if supported by: (i) in the case of a company having share capital, at least 100 members or not less than 5% of the total number of members, or any member(s) holding not less than 2% of the issued share capital; (ii) in the case of a company not having share capital, not less than one-fifth of the total number of its members; and (iii) in the case of depositors, at least 100 depositors or not less than 5% of the total number of depositors, or depositors to whom the company owes not less than 5% of the total deposits.

Outside such statutory thresholds, the primary limitation is qualitative. The class must consist of persons having the same interest, and the issues must be capable of being decided collectively. Claims that depend on individualized facts, separate transactions, or distinct measures of loss are generally not suitable for representative treatment.

In consumer law proceedings, while there is no fixed class size, the relevant Consumer Commission must be satisfied that the complainants represent consumers having the same interest. Environmental proceedings before the NGT and PILs are broader, but still require that the matter affects a group or community, rather than raising purely individual disputes.

Under Order I Rule 8 of the CPC, a representative suit requires the Court’s permission at the outset. Once granted, the Court directs that notice be issued to all interested persons, either individually (where practicable) or through public advertisement. Persons so notified may apply to be impleaded, and the class is defined through this process based on a shared legal interest.

Under the Companies Act, the process is more structured. Applicants must first meet the statutory thresholds for members or depositors. Upon admission of the action, notice is issued to the class, and affected persons are given an opportunity to opt out within the prescribed time. In practice, the class is typically identified from existing company records, such as registers of members or depositors.

In consumer law proceedings, representative complaints require the permission of the relevant Consumer Commission, which must be satisfied that the complainants represent consumers having the same interest.

Environmental proceedings before the NGT do not involve a formal class certification process. Claims may be brought by any person aggrieved or representative body, and the scope of affected persons is determined during the proceedings.

There is no developed framework permitting active solicitation or commercial aggregation of claimants; the class must emerge through statutory requirements and judicial oversight.

The choice of forum depends on the nature of the claim and the statutory framework invoked.

Representative suits under Order I Rule 8 of the CPC are filed before civil Courts of competent jurisdiction.

PILs are entertained by the Constitutional Courts, the High Courts and the Supreme Court.

Corporate class actions under Section 245 of the Companies Act are adjudicated by the NCLT.

In competition law, representative compensation claims under Section 53N of the Competition Act are heard by the NCLAT, following a finding of contravention by the CCI.

Consumer collective complaints are filed before the District, State or National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commissions, depending on the value of the claim.

Environmental collective claims are primarily heard by the NGT through its regional benches. Appeals from NGT decisions lie directly to the Supreme Court.

Class actions or collective proceedings must satisfy the ordinary jurisdictional requirements of the forum in which they are brought.

This includes territorial jurisdiction, pecuniary limits (particularly in consumer forums), and subject-matter jurisdiction under the relevant statute.

In addition, certain regimes include threshold or precondition requirements that affect maintainability. For example, competition claims can be pursued only after a finding of contravention by the CCI, and company law class actions must meet prescribed eligibility thresholds before being entertained.

These requirements operate as constraints on where and how collective proceedings can be initiated.

There is no single uniform approach. The position is predominantly opt-in, with certain statutory variations.

Representative suits under Order I Rule 8 of the CPC operate as Court-supervised opt-in proceedings. Notice must be issued to interested persons, who may then apply to be impleaded and participate in the proceedings. Consumer representative complaints under the CPA follow a similar approach, as they require permission of the relevant Consumer Commission and proceed on behalf of consumers having the same interest.

The opt-in/opt-out framework does not apply in the same way to PIL as PIL is not based on aggregation of individual claims but on enforcement of rights affecting the public at large. The beneficiaries of such proceedings are often indeterminate or evolving, and therefore do not form a class capable of opting in or out.

Under Section 245 of the Companies Act, the structure is more hybrid. Once the statutory thresholds are met and the action is admitted, notice is issued to the class. Members or depositors covered by the notice are included by default, unless they choose to opt out within the prescribed period.

To initiate a collective proceeding, the claim must be capable of being pursued in a representative capacity, which in practice turns on a few core requirements.

First, there must be a common question of law or fact arising from the same or similar conduct, affecting a group of persons in a comparable manner. The class must also be identifiable, even if not exhaustively determined at the outset.

Second, the proposed claimant must have the requisite standing under the relevant framework. This may involve meeting statutory thresholds (as under the Companies Act), qualifying within a defined category (such as a “consumer” under the CPA), or establishing a sufficient connection to the issue in public law proceedings.

Third, the matter must be suitable for collective adjudication. Courts and Tribunals will consider whether the issues can be decided on a common basis, without requiring extensive individualised assessment of liability or relief.

At the threshold stage, Courts and Tribunals assess these factors before allowing the claim to proceed as a representative or collective action.

Beyond the initial filing requirements, certain statutory frameworks impose additional safeguards relating to threshold scrutiny, notice, and class management.

Procedural rules for class action proceedings are forum-specific.

Representative suits under Order I Rule 8 of the CPC follow ordinary civil procedure with added requirements such as Court permission and notice, while proceedings under statutes such as the Companies Act, CPA and the Competition Act are governed by their respective procedural frameworks read together with the rules framed thereunder. Proceedings before the NGT are not bound by the CPC and follow a more flexible, self-regulated procedure, and PILs are conducted through a Court-driven process shaped by constitutional practice rather than strict procedural rules.

There are no fixed timelines for collective action proceedings in India, and the duration varies depending on the complexity of the issues, the nature of the relief(s) sought, and the forum involved. The CPA prescribes indicative timelines (three to six months across forums), which provide a structured framework for disposal, although more complex matters may take longer. Proceedings before the NCLT, as well as representative suits under the CPC and PILs, do not follow strict timelines but are managed based on the requirements of the case. In practice, Courts and Tribunals adopt a flexible and case-specific approach, allowing additional time where detailed evidence or technical issues are involved, while also expediting matters where urgency or public impact requires quicker resolution.

Broadly, remedies available in individual proceedings, such as compensation, injunctive and declaratory relief, are also available in collective redress proceedings, although their scope and application remain forum specific.

Monetary compensation is available under the Companies Act, Competition Act and the CPA, including in representative claims. Injunctive and declaratory relief(s) are also common, including restraining unlawful conduct or declaring actions void.

Certain frameworks also provide class-wide or regulatory remedies. The CCPA may order product recalls, refunds and impose penalties, while the NGT may award compensation, direct environmental restitution and issue continuing directions in environmental matters.

In PIL proceedings, Courts also often exercise continuing supervisory jurisdiction, monitoring implementation of their directions over time in matters involving systemic or structural issues.

Damages in collective action proceedings are generally compensatory, aimed at placing affected persons, as far as possible, in the position they would have been in but for the wrongdoing.

The measure of damages depends on the nature of the claim. In competition law matters, this may reflect loss caused by anti-competitive conduct, such as overcharge or loss of business. In corporate or shareholder claims, it may be linked to financial loss or diminution in value. In consumer disputes, compensation typically corresponds to the price paid, loss suffered, or cost of repair or replacement.

Environmental proceedings before the NGT adopt a broader approach, allowing compensation that includes the cost of environmental restoration and remediation, in line with the polluter pays principle.

PIL proceedings, however, are not typically compensatory in nature and focus on systemic or structural relief rather than individual damages.

Punitive or exemplary damages are not generally available in collective redress proceedings in India, as the primary focus is on compensating actual loss.

An exception exists under the CPA, though, which allows punitive damages in appropriate cases. In addition, the CCPA also has the authority to impose monetary penalties, which varies for a first contravention and for repeat violations.

In environmental law proceedings, the NGT may impose financial liability under the polluter pays principle, including the cost of remediation and restoration. While not classified as punitive damages, such liability may exceed direct loss and is intended to have a deterrent effect.

While collective redress matters are decided by judges or Tribunal benches, their composition depends entirely on the forum involved.

Representative suits before civil Courts are typically heard by a single judge. In contrast, Tribunals such as the NCLT, NCLAT, NGT and Consumer Commissions function through benches comprising judicial and technical members.

In PIL proceedings, matters before the Supreme Court are generally heard by benches of two or more judges, with larger benches constituted for issues of constitutional significance. High Courts typically hear PILs through division benches.

No. Class actions and collective redress proceedings in India are not subject to juries. Since India does not follow a jury system, all civil and criminal cases, including collective remedy cases, are adjudicated and decided by Courts, Tribunals and other quasi-judicial authorities through judicially appointed Judges and/or technical or other members.

There is no single uniform settlement mechanism, but certain frameworks provide for facilitated or regulator-led settlements.

Under the CPA, Consumer Commissions have the authority to refer complaints, including representative matters, to mediation, with any settlement requiring approval of the relevant Consumer Commission.

The NCLT and NCLAT may also permit and oversee settlements in appropriate cases, subject to ensuring that the interests of the class are adequately protected.

In the regulatory space, the SEBI (Settlement Proceedings) Regulations, 2018 provide a structured mechanism for resolving securities violations through settlement, typically involving monetary payment and compliance measures without admission of liability.

Under the Competition Act, enterprises are allowed to resolve matters through commitments or settlements with the CCI, subject to statutory conditions.

Yes. Settlements in collective proceedings are generally subject to judicial oversight, particularly where they affect a wider group of persons.

Courts and Tribunals examine whether the settlement is fair, reasonable and in the interests of the class, and may supervise its implementation. In large or complex matters, Courts have also exercised a more active role in shaping and monitoring settlement outcomes. Illustratively, the case of Union Carbide Corporation v. Union of India, AIR 1992 SC 317 (commonly known as the Bhopal Gas Case) serves as a cautionary tale highlighting the need for clear settlement approval processes and credible claims administration.

There is no general obligation to undertake alternative dispute resolution (“ADR”) before initiating collective proceedings.

However, certain frameworks incorporate ADR mechanisms within the process itself. Under the CPA, matters may be referred to mediation by the relevant Consumer Commission. Similarly, Tribunals such as the NCLT may encourage settlement or mediation in appropriate cases.

Outside these contexts, ADR remains voluntary, and there is no prescribed format mandating pre-litigation collective alternate dispute resolution.

Funding for collective proceedings in India is primarily party-driven, with limited structured mechanisms.

The general framework follows the “costs follow the event” principle, although Courts apply this flexibly, particularly in public interest matters where adverse costs are rarely imposed unless the claim is vexatious.

Some institutional support exists in specific contexts. The SEBI Investor Protection and Education Fund can be used to support proceedings involving investors, and the CCPA undertakes class-wide enforcement actions using its own statutory resources.

Courts and Tribunals also exercise cost-related powers, including directing security for costs or granting cost relief in appropriate cases.

There is no comprehensive statutory framework governing third-party litigation funding in India, and its application in the context of collective redress remains largely undeveloped.

In practice, such funding is structured through private agreements, but there is limited judicial guidance specifically in the context of class actions or collective proceedings.

While Indian Courts have considered third-party funding arrangements in other contexts, including arbitration, there is no settled position addressing their role or regulation in collective redress proceedings.

The position therefore remains evolving, with no uniform rules governing the involvement of third-party funders in such cases.

Three areas are emerging as key sources of collective redress risk in India.

First, corporate governance and shareholder disputes are gaining prominence, particularly as minority shareholders begin to test remedies under Section 245 of the Companies Act in relation to financial mismanagement. This is reflected in recent proceedings such as the Ankit Jain case, which is expected to inform future jurisprudence in this area.

Second, environmental, social and governance (“ESG”) related claims continue to be a significant area, particularly through proceedings before the NGT and Constitutional Courts. These typically relate to pollution, ecological damage and regulatory compliance. Recent suo motu proceedings before the NGT, including the action taken following warnings by the United Nations on groundwater depletion, reflect the proactive and wide-ranging nature of environmental collective redress.

Third, consumer, digital market and data-related issues are becoming more prominent. This includes misleading advertisements, unfair trade practices and platform-based conduct, increasingly addressed through regulatory action by the CCPA. In addition, data protection and cyber incidents are emerging as a potential area of risk. The Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 (“DPDP Act”) introduces a strengthened penalty framework. Large-scale data breaches affecting a significant number of users may, over time, lend themselves to collective or representative proceedings.

While Indian collective redress is still led mainly by public law, environmental and regulator-driven proceedings, private class-action style litigation is beginning to move from theory to practice. In the most recent development in the Ankit Jain case, where the NCLT admitted a petition under Section 245 of the Companies Act, the NCLT rejected the company’s objection that the case was merely a derivative action or was confined to past transactions. The case of Ankit Jain establishes a notable distinction between a derivative action and a class-action. The view espoused by the NCLT, and subsequently upheld by the NCLAT, indicates that Section 245 provides a meaningful avenue of redressal against past wrongful acts and for seeking relief(s) benefiting the company. This marks a serious judicial development in shareholder class actions under the Companies Act. The case of Manu Rishi Guptha, though subsequently withdrawn, remains instructive as an early example of minority shareholders relying on Section 245 of the Companies Act in the context of a merger and delisting challenge.

The most significant near-term development is likely to be the evolution of class action jurisprudence under Section 245 of the Companies Act. Until recently, India’s statutory shareholder class action mechanism remained largely unused. The final outcome of the Ankit Jain case will likely address important questions on the maintainability and scope of class actions, while offering crucial guidance on the NCLT’s role in minority shareholder protection.

ESG-related collective redress in India is primarily achieved through environmental and public law proceedings, rather than a distinct category of private ESG class actions.

Environmental claims are well established in practice through PIL and proceedings before the NGT, particularly in matters involving pollution, ecological damage and regulatory compliance.

The governance aspect is beginning to emerge through shareholder-led actions, such as in the Ankit Jain case, where minority shareholders have challenged alleged prejudicial conduct and corporate governance issues.

Another developing area is ESG disclosures and greenwashing. Regulatory requirements introduced by SEBI for ESG reporting by listed companies, along with increasing scrutiny of sustainability disclosures, may lead to claims framed around misleading disclosures, governance failures or misstatements to investors.

There are currently no specific proposals aimed at reforming collective redress as a whole in India. Instead, developments are likely to emerge through evolving jurisprudence across Courts and Tribunals.

The DPDP Act may influence the class action landscape, particularly in cases involving large-scale data breaches affecting multiple users.

Similarly, Section 245 of the Companies Act is likely to continue developing through judicial interpretation, especially as recent shareholder actions begin to test its scope and procedural requirements.

More broadly, reform is expected to evolve through judicial precedents and regulatory developments across sectors, rather than through a single unified legislative framework.