The design of India’s oppression and mismanagement regime balances the dual objectives of corporate law: protecting minority shareholders and curtailing opportunistic use.
The question is no longer whether India can create fast tracks. It already has. The question is whether the main track—and the regulators who feed into it—can be fixed.
A 19th-century system that forces the winner of a litigation to run from pillar to post to enforce a hard-won decree, poses an existential question for the judiciary.
Indian judiciary has a corrosive imbalance between the bar and the bench. Those who supervise the district judiciary do so without the lived experience that is essential for meaningful reform.
In this climate of populism, the clamour for accountability can easily transform into evaluation becoming a lever of control rather than a tool for feedback and improvement.
Real gains can be achieved when the government focuses its reforms upstream in better contract design, stronger capacity to monitor performance and maintain documentation.
More than 60 per cent of the suits remain pending after two years of having been filed, and this proportion is agnostic to whether the suit is a commercial or ordinary suit.
We now live in a world order that will keep shifting. India must use this window. This also means we remain disciplined enough not to be knee-jerked into reacting to what Pakistan sees as its moment in the sun.
COMMENTS