Introduction
A director is an individual who directs, supervises, or oversees the company’s affairs. According to the Companies Act, 2013 (“the Act”), a director is someone who is appointed to undertake the functions and duties of a company. The directors elected by the shareholders hold a fiduciary duty, and their decisions significantly impact the company’s operations and sustainability. Picking the right directors is crucial for growth, and the manner of appointment is more essential than the direction.
The Act allows the shareholders to elect the directors by a simple majority at a general meeting. This can leave a larger group of shareholders, who still own a significant portion of the company, without a say. To address this, the erstwhile Companies Act, 1956 (“the erstwhile Act”) offered a solution in Section 265, i.e., minority shareholder representation on the board under specific conditions. This was done if the principle proportional representation system was used for director nomination by providing in its articles of association.
Scope and Framework
The Act incorporates Section 163, which furnishes a mechanism for proportional representation in director nomination. This provision empowers companies to enshrine provisions within their Articles of Association (“Articles”) for appointing not less than 2/3rd of their directors through a proportional representation system. The Act contemplates various methods to achieve this, including the single transferable vote and cumulative voting, while also encompassing other methodologies which are unspecified and left to the discretion of the Board. Notably, Section 163 of the Act supersedes Section 265 of the erstwhile Act, which held a narrower applicability. Unlike Section 265 of the erstwhile Act, Section 163 of the Act extends to all companies except government companies. It’s crucial to recognize that the Articles do not inherently necessitate the inclusion of such clauses; however, for companies seeking to guarantee minority shareholder representation and safeguard their interests, proportional representation, as envisaged under Section 163, presents a valuable tool. The inclusion of the term “otherwise” underscores the Act’s flexibility in accommodating alternative methodologies beyond the explicitly mentioned mechanisms.
Principle of Proportional Representation for Appointment of Directors
Section 163 expands the applicability of proportional representation for director appointments. Unlike the corresponding provision in Section 265 of the erstwhile Act, which was restricted to public companies and their private subsidiaries, Section 163 extends this mechanism to both public and private companies, thus ensuring stakeholder protection. However, this provision is not applicable to those Government companies where the entire paid-up share capital is held by Central Government, and / or State Government(s).
A noteworthy feature of the provision is its pre-emptive nature within the Act. The section commences with a non-obstante clause “Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act…”, effectively establishing its dominance over all other provisions. This overriding authority becomes operational when a company incorporates the proportional representation framework outlined in Section 163 within its Articles. Notably, Section 162 mandates individual voting for director nominations, potentially conflicting with proportional representation system as provided in Section 163. However, by virtue of its overriding power, Section 163 supersedes the individual voting requirement stipulated in Section 162.
The application of Section 163 hinges on a critical aspect – the provisions must be contained in the Articles of the company to provide in order to necessitate its activation. This implies that proportional representation for director appointments is not mandatory but rather an option available to companies that expressly incorporate such a framework within their Articles. The section’s wording, “may provide for the appointment,” underscores this voluntary nature. While Section 162 prescribes individual voting for director nominations, the pre-emptive authority under Section 163 renders this requirement inapplicable in companies that have adopted the proportional representation system authorized by Section 163. The word “may” implies that the appointment of directors is optional, and the same is allowed once every 3 years under the proportional representation system.
The provision mandates that a company’s Articles, when opting for this system, must stipulate the appointment of not less than 2/3rd of the total board through this method. This provision does not impose an upper limit on the total number of directors who can be selected using proportional representation. If any casual vacancy arises on the cessation of the office of Directors appointed under the aforesaid provision, the Board can, subject to the company’s Articles, fill the casual vacancy during a Board meeting which shall be ratified by the shareholders in the immediately following general meeting.
Methods of Appointment
| Single Transferable Voting | Cumulative Voting |
| Every shareholder, regardless of their number of shares, has one vote per director to be elected through a single transferable voting system. For instance, if 3 directorships are to be filled from a pool of 5 candidates, each shareholder can rank up to 3 candidates in order of preference. The 3 candidates with the most votes will be elected. Minority shareholders can only vote for their chosen candidate without distributing their vote for other candidates. This system ensures their candidate receives the necessary votes to win, while other shareholders’ votes may be spread across multiple candidates. This process allows minority shareholders to potentially secure a board seat for their preferred candidate. | Under this method, each shareholder is allocated votes proportional to their shareholding. For example, if a shareholder owns 100 shares and there are 3 directors to be elected from 5 candidates, the shareholder has a total of 300 votes. They can choose to cast all their votes for a single candidate or distribute them among multiple candidates. If a group of minority shareholders pools all their votes for their chosen candidate, that candidate stands a good chance of being elected, as other shareholders’ votes will likely be spread among the remaining candidates to fill the other board positions. This approach helps protect the interests of minority shareholders within the company. |
To appoint directors in accordance with the proportional representation system, a company may adapt to other methods other than Single Transferable Voting or Cumulative Voting, as provided in the Articles and agreed by the shareholders in the general meeting.
Removal of Directors
Section 169(1) of the Act outlines the procedure for removing a company’s director, but specifies that this procedure does not apply if the company has chosen to appoint at least 2/3rd of its directors through the principle of proportional representation. Consequently, any director appointed under Section 163 cannot be removed under Section 169(1). The removal process for directors appointed through a proportional representation system remains unclear.
Conclusion
Proportional representation in director nomination, serves as a mechanism to safeguard the interests of minority shareholders. In the absence of such a system, traditional voting procedures may not translate to minority shareholder representation on the board. This can raise concerns regarding the adequacy of minority shareholder interests being considered within the decision-making framework of the company. The proportional representation system effectively mitigates this risk by ensuring a fairer reflection of the shareholder base in the composition of the board, and provides a highly rational protection mechanism for the interests of minority shareholders.
Disclaimer: The information presented here serves purely informational purposes and should not be construed as professional advice. While we strive for accuracy and completeness, we cannot guarantee the reliability, accuracy, or suitability of the information for specific purposes. Laws and regulations may change, and the legal landscape may shift over time, potentially rendering the information outdated or inaccurate. It is advisable to consult qualified professionals or seek appropriate guidance before making decisions based on this information. The author assumes no liability for any loss or damage resulting from the use of or reliance on the information provided. By reading this statement, you acknowledge and agree to the terms and conditions outlined in this disclaimer.
