INDIA Trends and Developments Contributed by: Roopali Singh, Aayushi Rout, Tuhin Dey and Samridhi Duggal, Vritti Law Partners
tigation into irregular transactions. Similarly, in ICICI Securities , the portfolio manager, Manu Rishi Guptha, has led a group of about 100 investors claiming that ICICI Securities was deliberately undervalued during its public offering, unfairly benefitting its parent, ICICI Bank. Both actions exemplify two key points. First, class action remedies under Section 245 of the Companies Act are slowly but surely becoming viable tools for minority shareholders seeking accountability. Second, they expose limitations in the present legal framework, with restrictions on standing to members and deposi- tors. Other stakeholders, such as creditors, bondhold- ers or institutional investors, who may also suffer from corporate misconduct, are excluded. Corporate class actions are emerging as a powerful instrument for shareholder democracy, but procedural and standing constraints still confine their reach. Regulators as Catalysts Regulators are increasingly stepping into the collec- tive redress space. The CCPA now files class-wide regulatory actions, including for product recalls, refund orders, and pen- alties for misleading advertisements. Some recent illustrations include: • Rapido (August 2025): The CCPA imposed a penalty of INR1,000,000 on the leading taxi and bike hailing app in India, for misleading advertise- ments claiming “Auto in 5 min or get ₹50”. The investigation revealed that the promised INR50 was not actual currency but platform-specific “Rapido coins” valid for only seven days and redeemable exclusively against bike rides. The CCPA held that this action constituted an unfair trade practice, as material restrictions were concealed in unreadable fine print. Rapido was directed to discontinue the misleading advertisements and reimburse affected consumers the full INR50 without conditions, demonstrating the CCPA’s suo moto enforcement powers to protect collective consumer interests. • Swiggy and Zomato (October 2024): The CCPA launched a suo moto probe against both platforms for unfair trade practices related to order cancella-
tions and refunds. The investigation was triggered after the National Consumer Helpline received 10,590 complaints against Swiggy (including nearly 4,000 for deficiency in service and 912 for refund issues) and 7,938 complaints against Zomato. • IndiGo Airlines (June 2024): The CCPA took suo moto action against the airlines for using dark pat- terns, including obscuring the option to skip paid seat selection and using “confirm shaming” mes- sages like “No I will take risk” for customers opting out of add-on services like baggage insurance. IndiGo complied by updating its interface to clearly inform consumers they can complete web check-in without choosing a preferred seat. These interventions highlight the CCPA’s evolving role as a proactive regulator capable of addressing sys- temic market issues that affect consumers at large. By exercising suo moto powers to investigate and penal- ise unfair trade practices, ranging from deceptive advertising to dark patterns and service deficiencies, the CCPA is effectively providing collective redressal without requiring individual consumer litigation. This regulatory model not only ensures swift corrective action and deters future harm but also circumvents the procedural and cost barriers inherent in traditional representative suits, positioning the CCPA as a critical institution for protecting collective consumer interests. SEBI uses its Investor Protection and Education Fund to support proceedings that affect large groups of investors. These institution-led efforts help overcome funding and co-ordination barriers that deter private groups. However, public funding remains limited and reac- tive rather than routine, and regulators must balance enforcement with due process. Environmental and Social Justice Leadership The NGT and PIL jurisprudence remain the most dynamic arenas for collective action. The NGT’s suo moto powers allow it to act swiftly on reports of pollu- tion or ecological harm. Long-running PILs, especially those led by M.C. Mehta v Union of India , AIR 1988 SC 1037, demonstrate the judiciary’s enthusiasm to supervise clean-up and policy implementation.
163 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook