INDIA Trends and Developments Contributed by: Roopali Singh, Aayushi Rout, Tuhin Dey and Samridhi Duggal, Vritti Law Partners
India has developed its own distinct model of col- lective redress, drawing thoughtfully from global best practices. It has adopted useful elements from English representative suits, US class actions, and European collective redress systems, while adapting them to fit India’s legal framework and social needs. Laws such as the Companies Act, 2013 (“Companies Act”) and the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (“CPA”), incorporate group action mechanisms but follow opt- in or hybrid models, include eligibility thresholds, and ensure strong judicial oversight. This balanced approach promotes fairness and accountability, pro- tecting the rights of those not directly involved while preventing the excesses sometimes seen in large, automatic opt-out systems. India’s model reflects a deliberate evolution, prioritis- ing judicial control, procedural fairness, and respon- sible innovation in collective redress. Legislative Expansion – From PILs to Specialised Statutes India’s collective action journey began in the late 1970s with Public Interest Litigations (“PILs”), which opened access to justice for groups unable to rep- resent themselves. From there, the idea spread into specific enactments, creating multiple avenues for collective relief. A notable early example of collective redress was the Ayodhya dispute, which began in 1950 as a repre- sentative suit filed under Order I Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The plaintiffs in the Ayod- hya dispute acted on behalf of all Hindus asserting worship rights to the site. In its landmark verdict, the Supreme Court of India reframed the case as one involving collective religious rights and held that the disputed land belonged to the Hindu community. To address communal interests, the Court established a three-member trust to build and manage the temple, creating an institutional forum for collective redress. It also directed the central government to allot a five acre plot for a mosque, to secure protection of col- lective Muslim worship rights. By channeling remedies through statutory bodies rather than individual suits, the judgment sought to balance competing group
claims, expedite resolution of mass disputes, and safeguard communal interests. Key forms of India’s collective redress system now include the following: • PILs remain the most dynamic form, used to enforce constitutional and environmental rights through continuing court supervision. • Corporate class actions under the Companies Act allow shareholders and depositors to act collec- tively before the National Company Law Tribunal. • The CPA combines individual consumer complaints with regulatory powers given to the Central Con- sumer Protection Authority (“CCPA”) for class-wide action. • Competition, securities, and environmental laws also enable group remedies through forums like the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, the Securities and Exchange Board of India, and the National Green Tribunal (“NGT”). Although India’s pluralistic class action model pro- vides flexibility, it is susceptible to forum shopping and can lead to overlapping jurisdictions. Corporate Class Actions – A Nascent but Growing Trend While corporate collective actions remain relatively nascent within the broader landscape of collective redress, recent developments suggest they are gain- ing traction. The Companies Act was designed to give sharehold- ers and depositors a statutory mechanism to challenge oppression, mismanagement, and fiduciary breaches. For years, however, few cases were filed, largely due to unfamiliarity, cost, and the statute’s restrictive eli- gibility thresholds. That trend is beginning to change. Two ongoing cases, namely Ankit Jain v Jindal Poly Films , CP No 58/245/PB/2024 and Manu Rishi Guptha v ICICI Securities Limited , CP No 92/245/PB/2024, mark a turning point. In Jindal Poly Films , minority shareholders holding about 4.99% of the company’s equity have alleged financial mismanagement causing losses of approxi- mately INR25,000,000,000 and sought judicial inves-
162 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook