The Nexus Between Corporate Governance and Ethics
WRITTEN BY:
NIBEDITA BEHERA
Corporate governance and business ethics are not mutually exclusive concepts; rather, they work in close synergy to influence how Indian companies operate, govern, and make critical decisions. While governance provides the framework for accountability, ethics sets the normative standards that guide business practices.
Together, these two forces create an environment where decisions are made not just for profit, but for the benefit of all stakeholders involved—including shareholders, employees, and the community.
The Role of Culture and Leadership
Both concepts deeply influence organizational culture and leadership styles. A robust governance framework ensures fair treatment of all stakeholders, but it is the ethical undertone that promotes long-term success through integrity.
- Transparency: Ethics demands openness. An organization grounded in ethical principles maintains reliable and open communication.
- Accountability: Governance demands responsibility. It ensures that management is answerable to the board and the shareholders.
Why the Synergy Matters
The link between corporate governance and ethics is the “safety valve” for maintaining business transparency and sustainable management. In the wake of various financial irregularities, it has become clear that statutory compliance alone is insufficient. True governance requires an ethical core to foster the transparency and accountability necessary to prevent future scandals
WHAT IS CORPORATE GOVERNANCE?
Corporate governance establishes a framework through which the objectives of a company are set and monitored. Its main principles include:
- Accountability – ensuring that management is answerable to shareholders.
- Transparency – clear disclosure of financial and operational information.
- Fairness – equitable treatment of all stakeholders.
- Responsibility – ethical and lawful conduct by management and board members.
[2]Corporate governance refers to the system of rules, processes, and relationships by which companies are directed and controlled. It ensures accountability, transparency, and fairness in dealing with stakeholders such as shareholders, managers, creditors, auditors, regulators, employees, customers, and society. The framework involves:
- Contracts defining rights, duties, and rewards among stakeholders.
- Mechanisms for control, supervision, and checks and balances.
Procedures for resolving conflicts of interest.
In essence, corporate governance is not just company administration but a management system and code of conduct that enables firms to achieve goals, maximize profits, and ensure long-term stakeholder trust.
The Satyam scandal, India’s biggest corporate fraud, intensified concerns about the need for stronger corporate governance. Internationally, corporate governance has been defined in key reports — the Cadbury Report (1992) described it as the system by which companies are directed and controlled, while the OECD Principles (1999) framed it as the set of relationships between management, the board, shareholders, and stakeholders that ensures accountability, performance monitoring, and efficient use of resources.
[3]In India, the statutory framework largely aligns with global best practices. The key components include:
- Companies Act, 2013: Introduced provisions for independent directors, board processes, audit committees, related party transactions, and disclosure norms, aiming to improve transparency and accountability.
- SEBI Guidelines: Issued by the regulatory authority for listed companies to safeguard investor interests.
- Stock Exchange Listing Agreement: Ensures compliance for companies whose shares are publicly traded.
- Accounting Standards (ICAI): Provide detailed disclosure and reporting requirements to ensure financial integrity.
- Secretarial Standards (ICSI): Govern the conduct of board and general meetings (SS-1 and SS-2), mandatory since July 2015. India has witnessed several corporate governance failures, including the stock market scam, UTI scam, Ketan Parikh scam, and the Satyam scam. These incidents highlighted the pressing need for transparency and accountability in corporate practices to sustain investor confidence and national economic growth.
The Companies Act, 2013, along with SEBI’s reforms and amendments to the Listing Agreement (effective October 2014), strengthened the framework by increasing disclosure requirements, enhancing minority shareholder rights, and reinforcing the accountability of boards. Additionally, corporate and investment advisory services now help shareholders and boards adapt to these reforms.
Overall, corporate governance in India today functions as a system of management and compliance that ensures stability, growth, and fairness. It places responsibility on top management, especially the board of directors, to protect the interests of all stakeholders and to maintain ethical, transparent, and sustainable business practices.
MAJOR CORPORATE SCANDALS IN INDIA
Corporate fraud consists of illegal or unethical and deceptive actions committed either by a company or an individual acting in their capacity as an employee of the company. Corporate fraud schemes are often extremely complicated and, therefore, difficult to identify. It often takes an office full of forensic accountants months to unravel a corporate fraud scheme in its entirety.
Some of the major corporate scandals are: –
- Satyam Computer Services Scandal (2009)
[4]The Satyam Computer Services scandal stands as one of India’s most infamous corporate frauds. In January 2009, the company’s chairman, Ramalinga Raju, admitted to falsifying financial statements over several years, inflating revenues, profits, and assets to the tune of over ₹7,000 crores. The scandal exposed serious lapses in board oversight, auditing practices, and regulatory monitoring, shaking investor confidence and highlighting systemic weaknesses in corporate governance.
[5]The Satyam Computer Services scandal of 2009 is often described as India’s “Enron moment.” Founded in 1987, Satyam grew rapidly into one of the country’s leading IT firms, earning international clients and even corporate governance awards. However, on 7 January 2009, its chairman, Ramalinga Raju, shocked the corporate world by confessing that the company’s financial statements had been falsified for years. Revenues and profits were grossly inflated, assets were overstated by thousands of crores, and liabilities were concealed. The methods of manipulation included fake bank statements, fictitious invoices, non-existent customer identities, and the creation of thousands of false salary accounts. Raju also attempted to mask the gaps by proposing controversial acquisitions of family-owned firms such as Maytas Infrastructure and Maytas Properties. Despite such large-scale fraud, the company’s board and its statutory auditors, PricewaterhouseCoopers, failed to detect the irregularities, raising serious questions about the efficacy of internal controls and independent oversight. The scandal led to a dramatic fall in Satyam’s share price, causing huge investor losses and undermining global confidence in Indian corporate governance. In response, the government dissolved the existing board, initiated multiple regulatory and criminal proceedings, and eventually facilitated a takeover by Tech Mahindra to rescue the firm. The case highlights fundamental weaknesses in corporate governance, including inadequate board vigilance, auditor negligence, and the prioritisation of market expectations over ethical responsibility, offering lasting lessons for the need to strengthen transparency and accountability in Indian companies.
Legal Proceedings:
Following the revelation of the fraud, numerous legal proceedings were initiated both in India and abroad. In India, the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), the Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO), and the Enforcement Directorate (ED) have filed multiple cases against Raju and other executives, resulting in convictions, penalties, and imprisonment. Internationally, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) filed civil actions against Satyam for overstating revenues and assets, while several class-action lawsuits were initiated by investors alleging securities law violations.
[6]This case illustrates how corporate governance failures, including inadequate board oversight, a lack of transparency, and auditor negligence, can result in both substantial financial losses and widespread legal repercussions. It serves as a landmark lesson for strengthening governance structures and regulatory compliance in Indian companies.
[7]The ripple effects of the Satyam fraud continued to surface even years later in taxation disputes. In Satyam Computer Services Ltd v Commissioner of Income Tax Central (Telangana High Court, 31 January 2025), the court held that tax authorities could not levy income tax on amounts that were fictitious or artificially created through fraudulent accounting practices. This judgment underscored that corporate fraud not only attracts criminal and regulatory sanctions but also has lasting consequences in areas such as taxation, where courts are compelled to reconcile fraudulent reporting with principles of fairness and genuine hardship. The case demonstrates how the legacy of corporate scandals extends far beyond immediate penalties, creating continuing legal and financial challenges for regulators, companies, and stakeholders alike.
- PNB Scam (2018)
[8]The Punjab National Bank (PNB) scam, one of India’s most significant financial frauds, came to light in early 2018. Orchestrated by billionaire jeweller Nirav Modi and his uncle Mehul Choksi, the fraud involved the unauthorized issuance of Letters of Undertaking (LoUs) by certain PNB officials at the bank’s Brady House branch in Mumbai. These LoUs, typically used to facilitate short-term credit for importers, were issued without proper documentation or collateral, allowing the accused to secure overseas credit from other Indian banks.
The modus operandi involved bypassing the bank’s Core Banking System (CBS) and the SWIFT messaging platform, which are integral to banking operations and regulatory oversight. By not recording these transactions in the CBS, the fraudulent activities went undetected for an extended period. The lack of integration between CBS and SWIFT, along with the absence of real-time monitoring mechanisms, facilitated the concealment of these illicit transactions.
[9]Several factors contributed to the prolonged nature of the scam:
- Weak Internal Controls: The absence of robust internal auditing and oversight mechanisms allowed the fraudulent activities to continue unchecked. The bank’s failure to implement effective checks and balances enabled the perpetrators to exploit system vulnerabilities.
- Regulatory Oversight Failures: Regulatory bodies, including the Reserve Bank of India (RBI), failed to detect the irregularities in the bank’s operations. The lack of stringent monitoring and enforcement of banking norms contributed to the scale of the fraud.
- Collusion and Lack of Accountability: The involvement of bank officials in the fraudulent activities, coupled with a lack of accountability at various levels, facilitated the execution of the scam. The absence of a whistleblower mechanism and the failure to act on red flags further exacerbated the situation.
- Inadequate Risk Management Practices: The bank’s failure to assess and manage credit risks effectively allowed the perpetrators to secure substantial loans without proper due diligence. The lack of a comprehensive risk management framework contributed to the exploitation of system weaknesses.
[10]The impact of the scam was multifaceted:
- Financial Losses: The immediate financial loss to PNB was estimated at ₹11,400 crore, with potential exposure extending to other banks involved in the credit chain.
- Reputational Damage: The scandal tarnished the reputation of PNB and raised concerns about the integrity of India’s banking sector, especially public sector banks.
- Legal and Regulatory Repercussions: The incident led to multiple legal proceedings, including investigations by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and the Enforcement Directorate (ED). The scam also prompted regulatory reforms aimed at strengthening internal controls and enhancing transparency in banking operations.
[11]In response to the fraud, several measures were proposed and implemented:
- Integration of CBS and SWIFT: To prevent unauthorized transactions, banks were mandated to integrate their CBS with the SWIFT platform, ensuring that all transactions are recorded and monitored in real-time.
Strengthening Internal Controls: Banks were required to enhance their internal auditing processes and establish robust oversight mechanisms to detect and prevent fraudulent activities.
- Regulatory Reforms: The RBI introduced stricter guidelines for the issuance of LoUs and other trade finance instruments, emphasizing the need for collateral and proper documentation.
- Promoting Whistleblower Mechanisms: To encourage reporting of irregularities, banks were advised to establish and promote effective whistle blower channels, ensuring protection for individuals reporting misconduct.
The PNB scam serves as a stark reminder of the vulnerabilities in banking operations and the critical importance of robust governance frameworks. It underscores the need for continuous vigilance, stringent regulatory oversight, and a culture of accountability to safeguard the integrity of financial institutions.
- Kingfisher Airlines Scam (2008–2012)
[12]Background and Launch: Kingfisher Airlines, launched in 2005 by Vijay Mallya’s United Breweries Group, aimed to revolutionize India’s aviation sector with a premium service model. Initially, it garnered attention for its luxurious offerings and celebrity endorsements.
Financial Mismanagement and Defaults:
[13] Despite early promise, Kingfisher faced significant financial challenges:
- Beginning of Misconduct (2008–2009): Vijay Mallya allegedly began diverting funds, taking excessive loans, and mismanaging finances while the airline ran heavy losses.
- Loan Defaults: By 2011, Kingfisher had defaulted on loans totalling around ₹9,000 crore, leading banks, including the State Bank of India, to classify it as a Non-Performing Asset (NPA).
- Unpaid Salaries and Taxes: Employees were left unpaid for months, and statutory dues such as taxes were deducted but not remitted, prompting legal actions.
- Operational Collapse (2012): Due to financial and regulatory constraints, aircraft were grounded, crippling operations further.
[14]Regulatory and Legal Actions
The situation attracted scrutiny from various regulatory bodies:
DGCA Suspension: In October 2012, the Directorate General of Civil Aviation suspended Kingfisher’s operating license due to safety concerns and failure to address regulatory requirements.
- Investigations: The Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO) and Enforcement Directorate (ED) initiated probes into alleged financial irregularities, including inflated brand valuations and potential money laundering activities.
[15]Vijay Mallya’s Role and Legal Proceedings
Vijay Mallya, the airline’s chairman, became a central figure in the controversy:
- Extradition Efforts: Facing charges of financial misconduct, Mallya fled to the UK in 2016. Indian authorities sought his extradition, which was contested in UK courts. In 2020, the UK Supreme Court ruled against his appeal, paving the way for potential extradition.
- Contempt of Court: In 2022, the Indian Supreme Court convicted Mallya for contempt of court for transferring funds in violation of court orders, sentencing him to four months in jail and imposing a fine.
Impact and Aftermath
The Kingfisher Airlines debacle had far-reaching consequences:
- Economic Fallout: The airline’s collapse led to significant financial losses for banks and investors, affecting the broader Indian economy.
- Corporate Governance Lessons: The incident highlighted the need for stringent corporate governance practices, transparency, and accountability in business operations.
- Regulatory Reforms: In response to the scandal, Indian authorities introduced stricter regulations to prevent similar occurrences in the future.
KEY FAILURES IN GOVERNANCE LEADING TO SCANDALS
[16]One of the most glaring failures contributing to major corporate scandals in India is weak board oversight. Boards often lacked independence and failed to ask hard questions; in many cases, independent directors were nominal, and their role was more decorative than substantive. For example, under Section 149 of the Companies Act, 2013, a public company is required to have at least one-third independent directors, but studies show that in practice, many boards do not allow these independent members access to complete information or permit them meaningful participation in audit or risk-related discussions.
Transparency is another major failure. Corporate disclosures were often delayed, incomplete, or manipulated; financial reports concealed liabilities, inflated revenues, used fictitious bank statements, or masked related party transactions. Auditors and committees sometimes overlooked red flags—owing to conflicts of interest, lack of due diligence, or simply insufficient information being made available to them.
[17]Conflict of Interest issues also emerge repeatedly in scandals. In several cases, companies made related-party transactions that benefited promoters or insiders, with insufficient oversight or disclosure. Sometimes, audit firms had continuing contracts or relationships with management that impaired audit independence. Also, senior executives or board members who had overlapping roles or shareholdings stood in positions where their interests diverged from those of minority shareholders or the company broadly.
Finally, poor regulatory compliance played a key role. Although regulations exist (through the Companies Act, SEBI LODR, etc.), there were failures in adhering to them. Audit committees were sometimes not constituted properly, internal control frameworks were weak, risk assessments were superficial, and whistleblower or vigilance mechanisms were absent or ineffective. Also, regulatory authorities often lacked resources or did not act swiftly. This created environments where unethical practices could grow unchecked until large-scale fraud occurred.
Legal Reforms & Measures Post Scandals
[18]After major scandals like Satyam, PNB, and Kingfisher, India introduced numerous reforms aimed at strengthening governance and improving regulatory enforcement The Companies Act, 2013 was a watershed moment: it introduced mandatory independent directors (Section 149), strengthened audit committees (Section 177), introduced rules for related-party transactions, and provided for stricter disclosures. It also mandated that companies meeting thresholds must have corporate social responsibility initiatives (Section 135) and introduced statutory obligations for whistleblower protection.
[19]SEBI also tightened norms: The LODR (Listing Obligations and Disclosure Requirements) Regulations, 2015 require listed companies to have more rigorous disclosure standards, provide better oversight of related party transactions, ensure audit committees are effective, and ensure independent directors meet eligibility criteria. Further, SEBI’s demands for certification by the CEO and CFO and timely financial reporting were strengthened.
Amendments to the Companies Act (such as the 2017 Amendment) also sought to decriminalise minor offences, rationalise penalties, and reduce regulatory burden while preserving compliance. Secretarial Standards issued by ICSI emphasize standardized practices for board meetings, general meetings, disclosures, and record-keeping. These norms reinforce internal governance mechanisms. Moreover, enforcement mechanisms have been enhanced: regulatory bodies like SEBI and MCA have increased investigations penalization of non-compliance. Use of technology (for example, monitoring disclosures, automated tracking of regulatory filings) has been encouraged. Audit rotation (for auditors) has become more common in some sectors, adding another layer of independent review to avoid auditor complacency.
CURRENT CHALLENGES IN CORPORATE GOVERNANCE IN INDIA
[20]Despite significant legal reforms, multiple challenges persist. One major issue is the implementation gap: many companies formally comply with governance norms (e.g., having independent directors, audit committees), but in reality, these are often pro forma. Board meetings may lack depth of discussion, independent directors may not get access to full information, and risk committees may be inactive.
Another challenge is awareness issues among Small and Medium Enterprises (SMEs). Many SMEs are unaware of governance best practices or cannot afford a robust audit or compliance infrastructure. Regulatory requirements often cater more to large listed companies; many smaller companies remain outside strict oversight.
A further weak link is the role of independent directors. While the law prescribes criteria for eligibility, there are concerns about their actual independence, conflicts of interest, lack of sufficient domain expertise, and multiple directorships. Some independent directors are overburdened with too many companies, reducing effectiveness.
Enforcement issues remain severe. Regulators often have limited manpower, delays in investigations, legal appeals that drag on, and sometimes insufficient coordination among regulatory bodies (SEBI, MCA, RBI, SFIO). Weaknesses in punishment (penalties too low in some cases, or difficulty in recovery) dilute deterrence.
Also, cultural issues persist: in many firms, compliance is seen as a checklist, not as part of leadership and ethics. Board cultures that do not encourage dissent or question management decisions worsen oversight issues. Finally, rapid technological changes, global operations, and financial innovations pose new risks that regulations may not yet fully cover.
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR STRENGTHENING CORPORATE GOVERNANCE
[21]To further raise governance standards, India should consider deeper reforms. First, strengthening regulatory enforcement is critical: regulators need greater resources (staff, technological tools), clearer mandates, and faster adjudicatory processes. Possibly, creating a unified corporate governance regulator or stronger coordination among existing ones (MCA, SEBI, RBI, SFIO) could reduce delays and overlaps.
Second, enhancing the role of independent directors through stricter selection criteria (domain expertise, less overlap), regular performance evaluations, training and capacity building, and ensuring they have real access to information. Also, independent directors should have more powers to ask questions and challenge management.
Third, internal audit, risk management, and transparency should not be mere legal requirements, but deeply integrated into corporate culture. Firms should adopt robust internal control systems, ensure financial reporting is timely and accurate, disclose related party transactions fully, and publish risk assessment and ESG metrics.
Fourth, strong whistleblower protection and vigilant mechanisms are essential. Employees and stakeholders should have safe channels to report concerns; legal protections must assure them of no retaliation; companies should promote ethical reporting and follow up.
Fifth, move beyond mandatory CSR to integrate ESG (Environmental, Social, Governance) frameworks. Investors increasingly expect ESG disclosures; incorporating environmental impact, social responsibility, and governance practices into business strategy will help in long-term sustainability.
Sixth, for SMEs, there should be tailored governance guidance and support: simplified codes, capacity building, incentives for compliance (e.g., lower audit costs, recognition), so smaller firms are not left behind.
CONCLUSION
Corporate governance is not just a regulatory checklist—it is the foundation of trust, stability, and sustainable growth. The major scandals in India (Satyam, PNB, Kingfisher) have laid bare how failures in transparency, oversight, conflict management, and regulatory compliance can lead to catastrophic financial losses, legal fallout, and erosion of public trust. While legal reforms under the Companies Act, SEBI’s LODR, and other frameworks have strengthened the governance landscape, real change depends on more than laws—it requires culture, ethics, accountability, and effective enforcement. Looking ahead, companies must internalize governance as part of their identity, not just a duty. Only then will Indian corporate entities gain the resilience, credibility, and investor confidence necessary for long-term success.
[1]“Corporate Governance” (Drishti IAS, February 2, 2024) <https://www.drishtiias.com/to-the-points/paper4/corporate-governance-1> accessed September 18, 2025
[2]Meghna Thapar and Arjun Sharma, ‘Corporate Governance in India: an Analysis’ (2017) 4(1) Journal of Economic and Social Development 84, 6 <www.academia.edu/download/57105906/Vol_4_No_1_Final_online2.pdf#page=88> accessed 18 September 2025.
[3]Meghna Thapar and Arjun Sharma, ‘Corporate Governance in India: an Analysis’ (2017) 4(1) Journal of Economic and Social Development 84, XXXX <www.academia.edu/download/57105906/Vol_4_No_1_Final_online2.pdf#page=88> accessed 18 September 2025.
[4]Tanushree, ‘Satyam Scam: Case Study of the Satyam Fraud Case | 5paisa’ (5paisa) <www.5paisa.com/blog/satyam-scam> accessed 18 September 2025.
[5]Madan Lal Bhasin, ‘Corporate Accounting Fraud: A Case Study of Satyam Computers Limited’ (2013) 2(2) Open Journal of Accounting <www.scirp.org/journal/paperinformation?paperid=30220> accessed 11 September 2025.
[6]M/S. Satyam Computer Services Limited, vs Directorate Of Enforcement, Telangana High Court, 31 December 2018, No.37487 of 2012 & WAMP.No.155 of 2016 in W.A.No.133 of 2013 (India) <https://indiankanoon.org/doc/174473481/> accessed 18 September 2025.
[7]M/S. Satyam Computer Services Limited, … vs The Commissioner Of Income Tax Central, Telangana High Court, 31 January 2025, No.23255 of 2011, No.17518 of 2011, No.17526 of 2011, No.19622 of 2011, No.3906 of 2012, No.9667 of 2013 (India) <https://indiankanoon.org/doc/109297662/> accessed 18 September 2025.
[8]Lovejit Kaur, ‘PNB SCAM: Shining Diamond Trader Took Away’ (2020) 8(1) INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ENGINEERING DEVELOPMENT AND RESEARCH 51, <https://rjwave.org/ijedr/viewpaperforall.php?paper=IJEDR2001010> accessed 19 September 2025.
[9]mayank111kishore, ‘Failures of the Corporate Governance in PNB Heist | PDF | Audit | Banks’ (Scribd, 25 September 2025) <www.scribd.com/document/914408179/Failures-of-the-Corporate-Governance-in-PNB-Heist> accessed 18 September 2025.
[10]Sukhpreet Monga, ‘PNB Scam: Full Story, Impact on Banking, and Lessons Learned’ (PNB scam) <https://plutuseducation.com/blog/pnb-scam/> accessed 18 September 2025.
[11]Devansh Shekhar, ‘Banking Frauds: In relation to PNB Scam’ [2020] SSRN XXXX <https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3687748> accessed 19 September 2025.
[12]‘Vijay Mallya Scam: A Story of Luxury, Lifestyle and Greed’ (Finology Insider – Latest Updates & News on Finance and Legal in India, 28 September 2020) <https://insider.finology.in/investing/vijay-mallya-scam> accessed 18 September 2025.
[13]Vilasini Pollisetty, ‘The Case of Vijay Mallya and Kingfisher Airlines – Seven Pillars Institute’ (Seven Pillars Institute, 31 May 2019) <https://sevenpillarsinstitute-org.sevenpillarsconsulting.com/the-case-of-vijay-mallya-and-kingfisher-airlines/> accessed 18 September 2025.
[14]‘Kingfisher Airlines brand valuation being investigated – The Tribune’ (The Tribune, 16 March 2016) <www.tribuneindia.com/news/archive/business/kingfisher-airlines-brand-valuation-being-investigated-209651/> accessed 18 September 2025.
[15]Sushil Alewa, ‘The Kingfisher Airlines Loan Default Scam: The Rise and Fall of Vijay Mallya’ (ISFM, 9 January 2025) <https://isfm.co.in/the-kingfisher-airlines-loan-default-scam/> accessed 18 September 2025.
[16]Akshita Arora, ‘Do independent directors enhance better corporate governance in companies in India?’ [2024] Public Administration and Policy XXXX <http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/pap-05-2023-0057> accessed 18 September 2025.
[17]Maulin Salvi and Sahil Kanuga, ‘Nishith Desai Associates’ (Nishith Desai Associates: Nishith Desai, 14 August 2023) <www.nishithdesai.com/fileadmin/user_upload/Html/Hotline/Yes_Governance_Matters_Aug1423_M.htm> accessed 18 September 2025.
[18]Saniya Lanjekar, ‘Strategic Compliance And Corporate Governance Under The Companies Act, 2013 – IJLSSS’ (IJLSSS, 2025) <https://ijlsss.com/strategic-compliance-and-corporate-governance-under-the-companies-act-2013/> accessed 18 September 2025.
[19]Anamika, ‘CORPORATE GOVERNANCE ISSUES IN INDIA’ 4(1) Indian Journal of Integrated Research in Law 10, <https://ijirl.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/CORPORATE-GOVERNANCE-ISSUES-IN-INDIA.pdf> accessed 19 September 2025.
[20]Shashwat Kaushik, ‘Evolution and effectiveness of Independent Directors in Indian corporate governance – iPleaders’ (iPleaders, 29 June 2024) <https://blog.ipleaders.in/evolution-and-effectiveness-of-independent-directors-in-indian-corporate-governance/> accessed 18 September 2025.
[21]Shashwat Kaushik, ‘Evolution and effectiveness of Independent Directors in Indian corporate governance – iPleaders’ (iPleaders, 29 June 2024) <https://blog.ipleaders.in/evolution-and-effectiveness-of-independent-directors-in-indian-corporate-governance/> accessed 18 September 2025.