Archive · 18 Sep 2026
India’s Board Audits Tested: Myth, Miracle, or Mirage?
Companies are supposed to check how well their boards are working each year.
A simple questionnaire may say that everything is fine even when important problems are hidden.
A stronger review looks at how directors ask questions, make decisions, handle risks, and respond to crises.
It also checks whether directors have the right skills for the company’s needs.
Independent directors must be able to challenge powerful leaders and protect minority shareholders.
Outside experts can help by observing meetings and discussing difficult issues.
But the review may not be truly independent if company executives choose the assessor or if the assessor has other business ties to the company.
The review matters only when the board learns from the findings and makes real changes.
Sebi requires listed companies to annually evaluate their boards, committees, and individual directors.
The article argues that questionnaires and scoring alone may create reassurance without improving board effectiveness.
A deeper audit should examine competency, capability, crisis management, and compliance through documents, interviews, observations, and decisions.
Independent directors may meet regulatory standards while relationships with promoters or companies still raise questions about independent judgement.
Assessments have value only when boards accept uncomfortable findings, assign accountability, and act on capability or succession problems.
- Who
- Listed companies, their boards, committees, individual directors, chairpersons, nomination and remuneration committees, and external assessors.
- What
- The effectiveness of annual board evaluations and deeper board-effectiveness audits is being questioned.
- When
- The evaluations are required annually under Sebi’s stated requirements.
- Where
- Across India Inc and its corporate boardrooms.
- Why
- To determine whether boards exercise sound judgement, challenge management, oversee risks, manage crises, and remain prepared for future needs.
Routine Compliance
Deep Governance Audit
Purpose of evaluation
Routine Compliance
Annual questionnaires, scores, and formal reports may satisfy a requirement and reassure directors that the board is effective.
Deep Governance Audit
A meaningful audit must uncover avoided conversations, missing capabilities, distorted power dynamics, and directors whose contributions no longer fit the company’s needs.
Role of external assessors
Routine Compliance
A prominent professional-services firm or global governance scorecard can give the assessment credibility and legitimacy.
Deep Governance Audit
The assessor’s independence may be questioned if the firm already advises the company, recruited senior leaders, or is selected by executives rather than the chairman or nomination and remuneration committee.
Handling difficult findings
Routine Compliance
Collective findings are easier to accept, while naming an underprepared, dominating, or ineffective director can create conflict.
Deep Governance Audit
The board must state material findings plainly and respond through development, role changes, or succession discussions when problems cannot be remedied.
- Regulatory requirement
- Sebi requires listed entities to conduct annual performance evaluations of boards, committees, and individual directors.
- Four assessment areas
- The article identifies competency, capability, crisis management, and compliance as the four Cs.
- Assessment methods
- Reviews may use questionnaires, interviews, peer assessments, board observations, committee reviews, board papers, and analysis of consequential decisions.
- Independence concern
- An independent director may satisfy regulatory requirements while relationships with promoters, shareholders, or the company raise questions about independent judgement.
- Process ownership
- The chairman or nomination and remuneration committee chairperson should run the board assessment process rather than an executive assistant, C-suite office, or procurement head.
- Required follow-up
- Material findings should have an owner, an action, and a review point.
- Central test
- An assessment is meaningful only if directors accept uncomfortable findings and change their behaviour or composition when necessary.