Majority rule and Minority rights: Does companies Act 2013 balance the equation
1. INTRODUCTION
In corporate governance, the principle of majority rule is essential to ensure smooth decision-making. However, the rights of minority shareholders must also be protected to prevent oppression and mismanagement by the majority.
The Companies Act, 2013 in India attempts to balance these two competing interests — giving the majority the right to make business decisions, while safeguarding minority shareholders from abuse.
2. CONCEPT OF MAJORITY RULE
The doctrine of majority rule originates from the principle that the will of the majority should prevail in the affairs of a company. It was laid down in the landmark English case:
🧑⚖️ Foss v. Harbottle (1843)
Facts: Two minority shareholders sued directors for alleged misapplication of funds.
Held: The court held that if a wrong is done to the company, it is the company (through majority) that must sue — not individual shareholders.
Principle: The majority is supreme in internal management; courts should not interfere unless exceptions apply.
3. LIMITATIONS OF MAJORITY RULE: NEED TO PROTECT MINORITY
Absolute majority rule can lead to oppression, fraud, and prejudice against minority shareholders. Therefore, certain exceptions to Foss v. Harbottle have been developed and codified into Indian law to protect minority interests, such as:
Acts ultra vires the company.
Acts constituting fraud or oppression.
Breach of fiduciary duty by directors.
Infringement of personal rights of shareholders.
4. HOW COMPANIES ACT, 2013 BALANCES MAJORITY RULE & MINORITY RIGHTS
The Companies Act, 2013 introduces several modern provisions that aim to protect minority rights while preserving the core of majority rule.
A. Protection Against Oppression and Mismanagement (Sections 241–246)
Section 241:
Allows members (even minority) to apply to the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) if:
Affairs of the company are being conducted in a manner oppressive or prejudicial to any member or public interest.
Section 242:
Empowers NCLT to grant relief such as:
Removal of directors,
Regulation of company affairs,
Recovery of undue gains.
🧑⚖️ Case: Rajahmundry Electric Supply Corporation v. A. Nageshwara Rao (1956)
Held that minority shareholders can approach the court if there is oppression by majority.
B. Right to Apply — Even as Minority
Under Section 244, minority shareholders can apply under Section 241 if they hold:
10% of share capital or 1/5th of members, whichever is lower.
NCLT can waive this requirement in deserving cases.
This provision ensures easy access to remedies, even for small shareholders.
C. Class Action Suits (Section 245)
This new right allows shareholders and depositors to file a class action if:
Company or its management is acting in a prejudicial manner.
They can seek:
Damages,
Injunctions against misleading statements,
Declaration of certain contracts as void.
🧑⚖️ Case: Re Satyam Scandal
Although prior to 2013 Act, the Satyam case highlighted the need for class action suits as many small shareholders suffered due to financial fraud by management.
D. Right to Information and Participation
The Act also empowers minority shareholders through:
Voting rights on key matters,
Right to receive copies of financial statements,
Right to attend meetings and ask questions,
Proxy voting and e-voting facilities.
E. Restrictions on Related Party Transactions (Sections 188, 177)
These provisions protect minority shareholders from self-dealing or conflict of interest by majority shareholders/directors.
Audit Committee approval is mandatory.
Interested members are not allowed to vote on such resolutions.
🧑⚖️ Case: GlaxoSmithKline Pharmaceuticals Ltd. (2015)
In a merger, SEBI required that related party shareholders abstain from voting, ensuring fairness to minority shareholders.
F. Exit Options for Dissenting Shareholders
Under Sections 230–232 (mergers and arrangements), dissenting minority shareholders:
Must be provided a fair valuation of their shares.
May exit if they disagree with the majority-approved scheme.
5. CRITICISMS AND GAPS IN PROTECTION
Despite improvements, some challenges remain:
Procedural Hurdles: Application to NCLT under Sections 241–244 may be time-consuming and expensive.
Lack of Awareness: Many minority shareholders are unaware of their rights.
Regulatory Capacity: Enforcement by authorities like SEBI and NCLT needs strengthening.
Majority Control: In closely-held companies (family-owned), majority still has de facto control over decisions.
6. CONCLUSION
The Companies Act, 2013 does make significant strides in balancing majority rule with minority rights. It introduces modern, investor-friendly mechanisms like class actions, strict scrutiny of related party transactions, and enhanced governance norms.
However, to truly achieve balance:
Legal remedies must be made more accessible and quicker.
Minority awareness must be enhanced.
Judicial and regulatory interpretation must remain minority-friendly but fair.
In essence, the Act acknowledges that while the majority must have its way for efficiency, the minority must have its say for justice.
RELATED Blog
0 comments