Independent director meaning: Comprehensive guide to legal definition, eligibility, disqualifications, roles, tenure, and liabilities under Companies Act 2013 and SEBI LODR for Indian companies.

An Independent Director does not run the company, but they ensure it runs right.

In India’s evolving corporate landscape, few roles have gained as much importance as that of an Independent Director. Once seen as a ceremonial seat at the board table, the position has today become the cornerstone of corporate governance — safeguarding transparency, accountability, and the interests of shareholders and society alike.

Did you know:

Among the top Indian listed companies, the share of independent directors on boards of the Top 200 companies stood at 53%, compared to global peers where it is 74%–86%.
In FY 23, there were 151 independent directors in India’s Nifty-500 companies earning ₹1 crore or more, up from just 67 in FY 18.

Whether you are studying company law, advising clients, or analyzing governance frameworks, understanding what makes a director “independent” is central to grasping how corporate boards function.

This guide breaks down, in plain language, who can become an independent director, what disqualifies one, what roles they play, and how their liability and tenure are governed under the Companies Act, 2013 and the SEBI (Listing Obligations and Disclosure Requirements) Regulations, 2015.

So, whether you’re preparing for a career leap, advising clients, or simply curious about how independence shapes India’s corporate boards — this article will give you everything you need to know to understand and navigate the world of Independent Directors.

How are independent directors defined?

Section 149(6) of the companies act 2013

Section 149(6) of the Companies Act, 2013 provides the statutory definition of an independent director.

According to this provision, an independent director is a non-executive director who, apart from receiving director’s remuneration, does not have any material or pecuniary relationship with the company, its promoters, directors, or management that could affect their independent judgment.

What constitutes a “material relationship”?

This is perhaps the most critical concept in understanding independence. A material relationship is any connection—financial, personal, or professional—that could potentially compromise the director’s ability to exercise objective judgment. For example, if a person is applying for independent director position in a company but his spouse is a director in such company than this creates a material relationship between the person applying and the independent director. We will discuss about this in detail when we talk about who can and cannot become an independent director.

SEBI LODR regulation 16

The Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) through its Listing Obligations and Disclosure Requirements (LODR) Regulations, 2015, provides an similar definition and requirements for independent directors of listed companies. Regulation 16(1)(b) of SEBI LODR largely mirrors the Companies Act definition but adds certain specific conditions and clarifications relevant to listed entities.

Under SEBI LODR, an independent director must be a person of integrity and possess relevant expertise and experience.

The regulation emphasizes that the board must evaluate and be satisfied that the independent director fulfills the conditions of independence and is independent of the management. This places an affirmative obligation on the board to actively determine independence rather than passively accepting a director’s self-declaration.

How is an independent director different from other types of directors?

Understanding the distinctions between various director categories is essential for grasping the unique role independent directors play in corporate governance. Let me break down the key differences.

Independent director vs executive director

An executive director is a full-time employee of the company who holds a managerial position and is involved in the day-to-day operations and management.

They typically hold designations like

Managing Director,
Whole-Time Director,
CEO, or Executive Director.

Executive directors draw salaries, bonuses, and other employment benefits from the company, and their primary focus is operational execution and business management.

In contrast, an independent director is a non-executive position with no involvement in daily operations. Independent directors attend board meetings, provide strategic oversight, and monitor management’s performance, but they do not participate in operational decision-making.

They receive only sitting fees and commission (if approved) but cannot draw a salary or employment benefits. This fundamental difference in engagement level ensures independent directors maintain an objective, arm’s-length perspective when evaluating management decisions and company performance.

Independent director vs non-executive Director

A non-executive director is any director who is not involved in the day-to-day management of the company. While all independent directors are non-executive directors, not all non-executive directors are independent. This is a critical distinction that many people miss.

Non-executive directors may have material relationships with the company, its promoters, or management. For example, a nominee director appointed by a lender or investor is a non-executive director but not independent because they represent specific stakeholder interests. Similarly, a retired founder who sits on the board as a non-executive director would not qualify as independent due to their historical connection with the company. Independent directors, by definition, must have no material pecuniary relationships and must be free from any influence that could compromise their judgment.

Independent director vs nominee director

A nominee director is appointed to the board to represent the interests of a specific stakeholder—typically a financial institution, lender, investor, or government body. Banks often appoint nominee directors to companies where they have extended significant loans, while private equity or venture capital firms appoint nominee directors to protect their investment interests.

Nominee directors owe their primary allegiance to the entity that nominated them, not to the company or its shareholders as a whole.

They actively advocate for their nominating party’s interests during board deliberations. Independent directors, on the other hand, must act in the best interests of the company and all its stakeholders collectively. They cannot favor any particular group and must maintain objectivity in all decisions.

This fundamental difference in fiduciary orientation makes independent directors uniquely positioned to protect minority shareholders and ensure balanced governance.

Which companies must appoint independent directors?

The Companies Act, 2013 mandates the appointment of independent directors for specific categories of companies based on their listing status, size, and public interest. Understanding these requirements is crucial for compliance.

Listed public company requirements

Every listed public company in India must appoint independent directors to constitute at least one-third of the total strength of its board of directors.

This means if a listed company has a board of nine directors, at least three must be independent directors. When calculating this one-third requirement, any fractional number is rounded up to the next whole number.

For example, if a company has eight directors, one-third equals 2.67, which rounds up to three independent directors.

This mandatory minimum ensures that listed companies, which have access to public capital markets and a diverse shareholder base, maintain robust governance oversight through a significant independent presence on the board.

SEBI LODR regulation 17

SEBI LODR regulation 17 provides detailed board composition requirements for listed companies, going beyond the basic one-third requirement in certain situations. The regulation prescribes different minimum thresholds based on the chairperson’s status and relationship with the company.

When the chairperson of the board is a non-executive director, the board must comprise at least one-third independent directors. However, when the chairperson is an executive director, or when the chairperson is related to the promoter or is part of the promoter group, the board must comprise at least half independent directors. This enhanced requirement recognizes the greater need for independent oversight when executive leadership also controls the board chair position.

Unlisted public company thresholds

Unlisted public companies are not automatically required to appoint independent directors. However, Rule 4 of the Companies (Appointment and Qualification of Directors) Rules, 2014 specifies certain thresholds that trigger the requirement.

The threshold criteria operate on an “or” basis, meaning meeting even one of them triggers the obligation. Companies meeting these thresholds but qualifying as joint ventures, wholly-owned subsidiaries, or dormant companies are exempt from this requirement. The rationale is that such companies, despite their size, don’t have the same public interest concerns as other large unlisted entities.

If an unlisted public company meets any of the following criteria, it must appoint at least two independent directors.

₹10 crore paid-up capital or ₹100 crore turnover or ₹50 crore loans/deposits

The first threshold is a paid-up share capital of ₹10 crore or more as on the last date of the latest audited financial statements. This captures companies with substantial equity capital indicating significant scale and stakeholder impact.

The second threshold is a turnover of ₹100 crore or more during the immediately preceding financial year. This metric ensures that companies with large operational scale, even if they don’t have high paid-up capital (for example, service companies), are subject to independent director requirements.

The third threshold applies to companies with aggregate outstanding loans, debentures, and deposits exceeding ₹50 crore at any point during the immediately preceding financial year.

This recognizes that companies with significant borrowings have creditor stakeholders whose interests need independent oversight, even if the company’s equity base or turnover doesn’t meet other thresholds.

Who can be appointed as an independent director in India?

Eligibility criteria

The Companies Act, 2013 sets forth comprehensive eligibility criteria focusing on professional competence and personal integrity.

An independent director must possess appropriate skills, experience, and knowledge in one or more fields relevant to the company’s operations. This includes expertise in areas such as finance, law, management, marketing, sales, research, corporate governance, technical operations, or other disciplines related to the company’s business.

The emphasis on relevant expertise ensures that independent directors contribute meaningfully to board deliberations rather than serving as mere compliance placeholders. For instance, a technology company would benefit from an independent director with deep IT industry experience, while a pharmaceutical company might seek someone with regulatory affairs or clinical research background.

Beyond technical qualifications, independent directors must demonstrate high standards of integrity and probity. This subjective assessment examines the candidate’s professional reputation, track record of ethical conduct, and absence of conflicts of interest. The board must be satisfied that the candidate can exercise independent judgment and act in the company’s best interests without succumbing to undue influence from management, promoters, or other stakeholders.

Candidates must also not be disqualified under Section 164 of the Companies Act, which lists various grounds for disqualification including failure to file financial statements, being convicted of certain offenses, or being declared insolvent. Additionally, they must comply with Section 165, which limits the total number of directorships an individual can hold.

Can professionals Like CA, CS, and advocates be appointed as independent director?

Yes, practicing professionals such as Chartered Accountants (CAs), Company Secretaries (CSs), and advocates can absolutely be appointed as independent directors, and they often make excellent candidates due to their specialized knowledge and professional training. Their expertise in areas like financial reporting, corporate law, compliance, and governance directly aligns with the oversight responsibilities of independent directors.

However, there’s an important restriction to note.

If a CA, CS, or advocate (or their firm) has provided professional services to the company, its holding, subsidiary, or associate companies as a statutory auditor, internal auditor, legal consultant, or advisor during the preceding three financial years, they cannot be appointed as independent directors. This cooling period prevents conflicts of interest and ensures that professionals who previously had a service relationship with the company don’t compromise their independence.

Once the three-year cooling period elapses, or if they’ve never provided services to the company or its group, these professionals can serve as independent directors while continuing their practice.

Many successful independent directors come from CA, CS, and legal backgrounds, bringing invaluable technical expertise to audit committees, compliance oversight, and corporate governance matters. Their professional training in maintaining objectivity and following ethical codes also aligns well with the responsibilities of independent directorship.

Can foreign nationals serve as independent directors?

Yes, foreign nationals can be appointed as independent directors of Indian companies, subject to certain conditions and documentation requirements. The Companies Act, 2013 does not impose any nationality-based restrictions on independent director appointments. Many Indian companies, especially those with international operations or foreign investors, actively seek foreign nationals as independent directors to bring global perspectives and international best practices to their boards.

However, foreign nationals must obtain a Director Identification Number (DIN) from the Ministry of Corporate Affairs before their appointment.

The DIN application process for foreign nationals requires submission of a valid passport as identity and address proof, along with attestation from Indian embassies or consulates, or from notaries in their home countries as per the Hague Convention.

Foreign independent directors must also comply with all other eligibility and disqualification criteria under Section 149(6) of the Companies Act.

They need to provide declarations confirming they meet independence criteria and are not disqualified under Section 164. Additionally, companies should consider practical aspects such as the foreign director’s ability to attend board meetings (either physically or through video conferencing as permitted under the law), their willingness to travel to India for key meetings, and compliance with any foreign exchange regulations if they receive remuneration in Indian rupees.

From a strategic perspective, foreign nationals can add significant value by bringing international business insights, cross-border governance practices, and diverse cultural perspectives that enhance board effectiveness, particularly for companies with global ambitions or operations.

What are the age limits for independent directors?

Under the Companies Act, 2013, there is no maximum age limit prescribed for independent directors. Any person above 18 years of age can be appointed as an independent director, provided they meet all other eligibility criteria. This flexibility allows companies to benefit from the wisdom and experience of senior professionals and retired executives who may be in their 60s, 70s, or even older.

However, for listed companies, SEBI LODR Regulations impose additional age-related requirements. Regulation 16(1)(b)(vii) mandates that no person below that age of 21 can be appointed as an Independent Director.

Similarly, 17(1A) mandates that no person shall be appointed or continue as a non-executive director, including an independent director, after attaining the age of 75 years unless a special resolution is passed by the shareholders. The explanatory statement accompanying the notice for such special resolution must indicate the justification for appointing or retaining the director beyond 75 years.

Registration with independent director data bank

Every individual intending to be appointed as an independent director must register themselves with the Independent Director Data Bank maintained by the Indian Institute of Corporate Affairs (IICA) under Rule 6(1) of the Companies (Appointment and Qualification of Directors) Rules, 2014.

This registration must be completed before appointment or within three months of being appointed as an independent director. The data bank contains details of eligible professionals, and directors must renew their registration annually or opt for lifetime registration. Failure to maintain valid registration can lead to disqualification from continuing as an independent director. Read my complete guide on how to register with Independent Director Databank here.

Independent director’s self proficiency test

Under Rule 6(4) of the same Rules, individuals registered in the data bank are required to pass an online proficiency self-assessment test conducted by IICA within one year of registration. The test evaluates understanding of company law, securities law, basic accountancy, and corporate governance.

However, an exemption applies to individuals who have served as a director or key managerial personnel in listed public companies or certain large unlisted public companies for a total period of not less than three years. This ensures that experienced professionals are not burdened unnecessarily while ensuring that new entrants possess a foundational understanding of board governance and compliance obligations. To learn more about the test read my article on Complete Guide to Independent Director Exam.

Who cannot become an Independent Director?

Understanding disqualification criteria is just as important as knowing eligibility requirements. Let me walk you through the comprehensive restrictions that might prevent your appointment in particular companies.

Relationship restrictions

The independence principle fundamentally requires separation from company control structures and decision-makers. These relationship-based restrictions ensure you maintain objectivity.

Cannot be a promoter of the company or its group

If you’re a promoter—someone who founded the company, controls its management, or holds substantial equity—you cannot serve as an independent director. This extends beyond just the company itself to its holding, subsidiary, and associate companies.

The logic is straightforward.

Promoters have vested interests in the company’s success and typically significant financial stakes. Appointing a promoter as an independent director would defeat the purpose of having independent oversight, as you could not objectively evaluate management decisions when you are part of the management control group.

Relationship restrictions go beyond direct promoter status.

If you are related to promoters or directors of the company, its holding company, subsidiary, or associate company, you are disqualified.

“Related” here means close family relationships as defined under section 2(77) the Companies Act: spouse, parent, brother, sister, and children, etc.

This restriction prevents family networks from circumventing independence requirements.

Imagine if a promoter’s brother-in-law served as an independent director—would that person truly provide independent oversight, or would family loyalty influence their judgment?

The law eliminates this ambiguity by prohibiting such appointments entirely.

Financial & shareholding restrictions

Financial relationships compromise independence by creating economic dependencies that could influence your judgment. The law sets specific thresholds to maintain your economic independence.

No material pecuniary relationship with the company/group/promoter or director beyond a limit

You cannot have a material pecuniary relationship with the company, its holding, subsidiary, or associate companies, or their promoters or directors, during the current financial year or the two immediately preceding financial years. “Material pecuniary relationship” means financial transactions exceeding 10% of your total income or such higher amount as prescribed.

What does this mean practically?

If you are a consultant earning ₹20 lakhs annually and ABC Ltd. pays you ₹3 lakhs for consulting services, that is 15% of your income—a material pecuniary relationship that disqualifies you from being an independent director of ABC Ltd.

However, receiving sitting fees and commission as an independent director doesn’t count as a pecuniary relationship—that’s specifically permitted remuneration.

No relative to hold ≥2% voting power in the company or group

If your relatives hold 2% or more of the company’s voting power (either individually or together), you are disqualified. This rule extends to the company’s holding, subsidiary, and associate companies.

Here’s why this matters: A relative with 2% voting power has meaningful influence over shareholder resolutions. If your spouse or parent holds significant shares, their financial interest could unconsciously bias your board decisions, even if you believe you are acting independently.

Restrictions relating to relatives of independent directors

The restrictions extend beyond your own financial relationships to those of your relatives, recognizing that family financial interests can compromise your independence just as effectively as your own.

Holding securities above the threshold

Your relatives cannot hold or have held 2% or more of the company’s total voting power during the current financial year or the two immediately preceding financial years. This is the mirror provision of the previous restriction—it focuses on your relatives’ shareholdings rather than your relationship to shareholders.

Indebtedness to the company/group/promoters/directors

Your relatives cannot be indebted to the company, its subsidiary, holding, or associate company, or their promoters or directors. Even indirect indebtedness through a third party creates a disqualification.

This prevents scenarios where a company provides loans or credit facilities to your family members, creating obligations that could influence your independent judgment when evaluating management proposals or financial decisions.

Guarantees/security for the indebtedness of others

Your relatives cannot have provided guarantees or security in connection with third-party indebtedness to the company or its group companies, promoters, or directors, exceeding ₹50 lakhs at any time during the two immediately preceding financial years or during the current financial year.

This restriction might seem obscure, but it prevents indirect financial entanglements. If your brother guaranteed a ₹1 crore loan that a supplier took from the company, that financial connection could compromise your independence when evaluating the supplier relationship or loan terms.

Pecuniary transactions ≥2% of turnover/income

Your relatives cannot have had any other pecuniary transaction or relationship with the company, or its subsidiary, or its holding or associate company amounting to two per cent. or more of its gross turnover or total income, singly or in combination with the transactions referred to in sub-clause (i), (ii) or (iii) stated above, during the current financial year or the two immediately preceding financial years.

Suppose XYZ Ltd. has a gross turnover of ₹500 crore. Two per cent of its turnover is ₹10 crore.

If the spouse of an independent director runs a consulting firm that earns ₹12 crore from XYZ Ltd. during the financial year — whether through a single contract or multiple smaller transactions — this would cross the 2% pecuniary transaction threshold.

Even though the independent director personally has no direct financial dealing with XYZ Ltd., the relative’s substantial business with the company would compromise the director’s independence, making them ineligible to serve as an independent director under Section 149(6)(iv) of the Companies Act, 2013.

Professional and employment restriction

Past professional and employment relationships create potential conflicts even after they have ended, so the law mandates cooling-off periods.

Past 3 years as KMP/employee of company or group

If you were a Key Managerial Personnel (KMP) or employee of the company, its holding, subsidiary, or associate company within the three immediately preceding financial years, you’re disqualified. KMPs include the CEO, Managing Director, CFO, Company Secretary, and Whole-time Director.

This three-year cooling-off period ensures you have developed sufficient separation from management thinking. If you were the CFO until two years ago, your recent involvement in financial decisions could bias your supposedly independent evaluation of those same financial matters.

Partner/proprietor/employee (Past 3 Years) of specified service providers

You cannot have been, within the three immediately preceding financial years, a partner, proprietor, or employee of firms providing specific professional services to the company or its group:

statutory audit firms,
internal audit firms,
cost audit firms,
legal firms, or
consulting firms receiving 10% or more of their gross turnover from the company or its group.

This restriction prevents potential conflicts from recent professional service relationships.

If your law firm earned substantial fees from ABC Ltd. until two years ago, you might find it difficult to objectively evaluate legal matters or challenge management decisions that benefited your former firm.

The 10% threshold for consulting and legal firms recognizes that some professional contact is inevitable, but substantial economic dependence creates disqualifying conflicts. If the company represented only 5% of your firm’s revenue, that’s permitted; if it represented 15%, you’re disqualified.

NGO restriction

Even seemingly benign relationships through non-profit organizations can compromise independence if financial dependencies exist.

CEO/director of NGO receiving ≥25% funds from company/group/ promoters or holding ≥2% voting power

If you are the Chief Executive or Director of a non-profit organization that receives 25% or more of its receipts from the company, its holding, subsidiary, or associate companies, or their promoters or directors, or if the company holds 2% or more voting power in that NGO, you are disqualified.

This rule recognizes that NGOs dependent on corporate funding might face pressure to align with corporate interests.

If you lead an NGO that receives ₹50 lakhs annually from ABC Ltd., comprising 30% of your NGO’s total funding, your independence as an ABC Ltd. board member would be questionable—you might hesitate to challenge decisions if you feared jeopardizing your NGO’s funding.

Statutory disqualifications

Beyond independence-specific restrictions, general director disqualifications under the Companies Act apply to independent directors as well.

Section 164 disqualifications

Section 164 of the Companies Act, 2013 sets out the circumstances under which a person becomes ineligible to be appointed as a director, including as an independent director. The provision aims to ensure that only individuals with integrity, sound financial standing, and a clean compliance record can hold directorship positions.

1. Personal and legal disqualifications

A person shall not be eligible for appointment as a director if they:

Are of unsound mind and have been so declared by a competent court;
Are an undischarged insolvent;
Have applied to be adjudicated as an insolvent and the application is pending;
Have been convicted by a court of any offence and sentenced to imprisonment for a period of at least six months, and five years have not elapsed since the expiry of the sentence;
Have been convicted of an offence and sentenced to imprisonment for a period of seven years or more (in which case the person is permanently disqualified from being appointed as a director in any company); or
Have been disqualified by an order of a court or tribunal which remains in force.

2. Financial and compliance disqualifications

A person also stands disqualified if they:

Have failed to pay any call money on shares held by them, whether alone or jointly with others, for a period of six months from the last day fixed for payment;
Have been convicted of an offence relating to related party transactions under Section 188 during the last five years;
Have not obtained a valid Director Identification Number (DIN) or have not complied with Section 152(3); or
Have not complied with the provisions of Section 165(1) regarding the maximum number of directorships permissible.

3. Company-level disqualifications

A person who is or has been a director of a company that:

Has not filed its financial statements or annual returns for any continuous period of three financial years; or
Has failed to repay deposits, redeem debentures, or pay interest or dividends for one year or more,

shall be ineligible to be reappointed as a director in that company or appointed in any other company for a period of five years from the date of such default.

However, a person appointed as a director in a defaulting company will not incur the disqualification for a period of six months from the date of their appointment.

4. Additional disqualifications by private companies

Section 164(3) also empowers private companies to prescribe additional disqualifications for directors in their Articles of Association, over and above those provided under the Act.

In essence, Section 164 establishes a comprehensive framework to ensure that individuals who have demonstrated financial impropriety, non-compliance, or lack of integrity are prevented from occupying board positions. It acts as a safeguard to promote transparency, accountability, and good governance in corporate management.

Section 165 directorship limits

Section 165 limits the number of directorships you can hold concurrently.

You cannot be a director in more than 20 companies at a time, with a sub-limit of 10 public companies.

However, for independent directors specifically, a more restrictive limit applies: you cannot be an independent director in more than 7 listed companies simultaneously in terms of Regulation 17A of SEBI (LODR).

If you are already a whole-time director in any listed company, your independent directorship limit drops to 3 listed companies. These restrictions ensure you have sufficient time and attention to devote to each directorship, preventing overextension that could compromise your effectiveness.

If you want to learn more about how to become an Independent Director then read my article here.

Roles and responsibilities of independent directors

Independent directors serve as the conscience and guardians of corporate governance, bringing objectivity, expertise, and accountability to board deliberations.

Their primary responsibility is to provide independent oversight of management’s performance, ensuring decisions align with the long-term interests of the company and all stakeholders, particularly minority shareholders.

They must scrutinize management proposals, challenge assumptions when necessary, and ensure board decisions are based on comprehensive analysis rather than undue influence from controlling shareholders or executives.

Independent directors play a crucial role in balancing conflicting stakeholder interests. When promoters’ short-term interests diverge from long-term company health, or when management seeks to enrich itself at shareholders’ expense, independent directors must speak up and vote in favor of equitable outcomes.

This includes reviewing and approving related party transactions to prevent value extraction by promoters, monitoring executive compensation to ensure it’s aligned with performance, and safeguarding minority shareholder rights during major corporate actions like mergers, acquisitions, or capital restructuring.

Beyond oversight, independent directors contribute strategic guidance leveraging their diverse experience and expertise.

They provide valuable perspectives on business strategy, risk management, succession planning, and industry trends without the operational tunnel vision that internal management may develop.

Schedule IV of the Companies Act specifically mandates that independent directors help formulate business strategies, monitor implementation, ensure financial reporting integrity, scrutinize executive performance, and uphold ethical standards.

Their independent judgment enables them to bring uncomfortable truths to board discussions, ensuring decisions are thoroughly vetted and potential risks are candidly assessed before the company commits resources to major initiatives. To know more about roles and responsibilities of Independent Directors, click here.

Independent directors in board committees

Independent directors play pivotal roles in various board committees where their independence and oversight capabilities are most critical. Under SEBI LODR Regulations, certain committees must be chaired by independent directors or have independent directors as a majority to ensure unbiased functioning.

The Audit Committee is perhaps the most critical committee requiring independent director presence. As per regulation 18 of SEBI LODR (read with section 177 of companies act) the Audit Committee must comprise at least three directors, with 2/3 of them being independent directors and an independent director must chair the committee. This committee oversees financial reporting quality, reviews quarterly and annual financial statements, evaluates internal control systems, monitors internal and statutory audit processes, and approves related party transactions. Independent directors on this committee serve as gatekeepers, ensuring management doesn’t manipulate financial reporting and that auditors maintain their independence.

The Nomination and Remuneration Committee must have at least three directors, with all directors to be non-executive and at least 2/3rd being independent directors as per regulation 19 of SEBI LODR (read with section 178 of companies act). An independent director or non-executive director must chair this committee. This committee’s responsibilities include identifying qualified board candidates, evaluating director performance, formulating criteria for director independence, recommending appointments and removals, and determining executive compensation. Independent directors ensure that executive pay is aligned with performance, succession planning is merit-based rather than nepotistic, and director appointments enhance board quality rather than merely accommodating promoter preferences.

The Stakeholder Relationship Committee addresses shareholder grievances and monitors share transfer processes. While this committee requires a non-executive director as chairman with atleast one director to be independent director as per regulation 20 of SEBI LODR.

The Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) Committee, required for companies meeting certain CSR thresholds, must include at least one independent director. Their role is to formulate and monitor CSR policies, ensuring funds are deployed for genuine social impact rather than directed toward promoter interests.

Independent directors must also participate in separate meetings held at least once annually without the presence of non-independent directors or management.

During these meetings, they review the performance of non-independent directors, the board as a whole, and the chairperson, while assessing the quality and timeliness of information flow from management. These executive sessions enable frank discussions about management effectiveness and board dynamics without the constraint of executive presence.

What are the legal provisions governing tenure, reappointment, and removal of Independent Directors?

What is the maximum tenure allowed for an independent director?

The law regarding Independent directors maximum tenure is stated in Section 149(10) and (11) of the Companies Act.

Independent Director can hold office for a maximum term of five consecutive years. They are eligible for reappointment for another term of five consecutive years, subject to passing of a special resolution by the shareholders. This means an independent director can serve for a maximum of ten consecutive years (two terms of five years each) in the same company.

After completing two consecutive terms totaling ten years, an independent director must observe a cooling-off period of three years before they can be reappointed as an independent director in the same company. However, they may continue as a non-independent, non-executive director after the ten-year period if the company and the director both desire continued association.

This tenure limit serves two important purposes.

First, it ensures board refreshment by bringing in fresh perspectives and preventing entrenchment of long-serving directors who may become too cozy with management.

Second, the cooling period prevents indefinite continuation that could compromise functional independence even if formal independence criteria are met. Studies have shown that directors serving excessively long tenures often develop relationships and loyalties that subtly undermine their objectivity, even when they maintain formal independence.

How can an independent director be reappointed?

Reappointment of an independent director for a second consecutive term of five years requires approval by shareholders through a special resolution, which means at least 75% of votes cast must be in favor. This higher threshold reflects the importance of independent directors and ensures broad shareholder consensus for their continuation.

The notice convening the general meeting where reappointment is proposed must include detailed explanatory statements justifying the reappointment, highlighting the director’s contributions during their first term, and explaining why their continued service benefits the company.

Shareholders must receive adequate information to make informed decisions about whether the director has effectively discharged their independent oversight responsibilities.

Additionally, at the general meeting where reappointment is proposed, the independent director being reappointed should not be present during voting on their reappointment.

This recusal avoids any perception that they are influencing the voting outcome. The board’s nomination and remuneration committee typically evaluates the independent director’s performance before recommending reappointment to the board and subsequently to shareholders.

Do independent directors retire by rotation?

No, independent directors do not retire by rotation.

Section 152 of the Companies Act, 2013 mandates that at least two-thirds of the total number of directors (excluding independent directors) shall be liable to retire by rotation. Independent directors are specifically excluded from this rotational retirement requirement under Section 149(13) of the Act.

This exemption recognizes that independent directors serve fixed terms of five years, and their appointments are already subject to shareholder approval at general meetings. Subjecting them to rotational retirement would create uncertainty about tenure and undermine their ability to provide stable, long-term independent oversight. The fixed-term appointment model ensures independent directors can exercise their judgment without concern about annual reappointment politics.

However, if an independent director is also appointed to any executive position in the company, they would cease to be an independent director and would then become subject to retirement by rotation rules applicable to other directors. This is unlikely in practice since holding an executive position inherently violates the independence criteria.

How many companies can a person serve as an independent director at the same time?

The Companies Act, 2013 imposes specific limits on the number of directorships an independent director can hold simultaneously.

A person can serve as an independent director in a maximum of seven listed companies at any given time. This limit ensures that independent directors can devote adequate time and attention to each company where they serve, rather than spreading themselves too thin across numerous boards.

For individuals serving as whole-time directors (executive directors) in any listed company, the restriction is stricter—they can hold independent directorships in a maximum of three listed companies. This recognizes that full-time executive responsibilities in one company leave limited bandwidth for independent director duties elsewhere.

These limits apply specifically to listed companies in terms of regulation 17A of SEBI LODR.

There are no prescribed limits for independent directorships in unlisted companies, though practical considerations of time commitment and effectiveness naturally limit how many boards one person can serve effectively. Companies evaluating independent director candidates should consider not just whether the candidate is within numerical limits, but whether they can realistically commit sufficient time and focus given their other board commitments and professional responsibilities.

Section 165 also imposes an overarching limit of 20 directorships in total (including both independent and other directorships), with a maximum of 10 public companies. While calculating directorship limits, alternate directorships and directorships in dormant companies are excluded. However, directorships in private companies that are either holding or subsidiary companies of public companies are counted toward the limit.

What is the code of conduct for independent directors?

What are the disclosure duties and integrity standards expected from independent directors?

Independent directors must uphold the highest ethical standards of integrity and probity in all their dealings related to the company. Schedule IV of the Companies Act, 2013 prescribes a comprehensive code of conduct specifically for independent directors.

They must disclose their interest in any transaction or matter directly affecting the company and abstain from participating in discussions or voting on matters where they have a conflict of interest.

At the very first board meeting where they participate as directors, and thereafter at the first meeting of every financial year, independent directors must submit a declaration that they meet all the criteria of independence as specified under Section 149(7).

Additionally, they must make a fresh declaration whenever there is any change in circumstances that may affect their status of independence. This ongoing disclosure obligation ensures the board remains informed about any developments that could compromise a director’s independence.

How should independent directors maintain their independence and avoid conflicts of interest?

Independent directors must not allow any extraneous considerations that would vitiate their exercise of objective independent judgment in the paramount interest of the company.

This means they cannot let personal relationships, financial interests, or loyalties to specific stakeholders influence their decision-making.

They must exercise their responsibilities in a bona fide manner in the interest of the company and not take any position that could result in direct or indirect personal gain or advantage for themselves or associated persons.

The code requires independent directors to refrain from any action that would lead to loss of their independence.

If they enter into any transaction or relationship that could compromise their independence—such as accepting a consulting assignment from the company, or if their relatives join the company in a key position—they must immediately inform the board and recuse themselves from the position of independent director.

When and how must independent directors report changes that may affect their independence?

When circumstances arise that affect an independent director’s status of independence, they are under a mandatory obligation to immediately inform the board.

This could include situations such as: their relative being appointed as a KMP in the company, starting a consulting relationship with the company that generates material income (more than 10%), or their shareholding increasing beyond 2% of voting power.

Upon receiving such intimation, the board must evaluate whether the director can continue in the role. If the change is material and compromises independence as per Section 149(6) criteria, the director must resign from the position, and the vacancy must be filled in accordance with the provisions of the Companies Act.

Failure to disclose changes affecting independence can result in penalties for both the director and the company, and may also expose the director to legal liability if board decisions made during the period of compromised independence are challenged by shareholders.

Liability of independent directors

Section 149(12) of the Companies Act, 2013 provides special protection to independent directors regarding their liability. It states that an independent director shall be held liable only in respect of such acts of omission or commission by the company which occurred with their knowledge, attributable through board processes, and with their consent or connivance, or where they had not acted diligently.

This provision recognizes that independent directors are not involved in day-to-day management and have limited access to operational information compared to executive directors. They rely on management for information and cannot be expected to know about every action taken by the company. Therefore, their liability is restricted to situations where they were aware of wrongdoing and either actively supported it, or failed to act diligently to prevent it despite having knowledge.

What constitutes “acting diligently”? Courts have interpreted this to mean that independent directors must attend board meetings regularly, ask probing questions when presented with proposals, review materials circulated before meetings, and dissent or abstain when they have concerns about proposed actions. If an independent director consistently attends meetings, actively participates in deliberations, and voices concerns when appropriate, they can demonstrate due diligence even if the company later faces regulatory action or shareholder lawsuits.

However, this protection is not absolute.

If an independent director rubber-stamps management proposals without adequate review, rarely attends meetings, or ignores red flags indicating potential fraud or mismanagement, they cannot claim immunity under Section 149(12). Courts have held directors liable when they failed to exercise even basic oversight responsibilities, such as not reviewing financial statements before approving them, or not questioning unusually large related party transactions.

Independent directors can strengthen their due diligence defense by maintaining good meeting attendance records, documenting their questions and concerns in board minutes, requesting additional information when proposals are unclear, and formally dissenting from decisions they believe are not in the company’s best interests. When in doubt about complex transactions, independent directors should insist on independent professional advice (legal, financial, or technical) at the company’s expense before approving major decisions.

The protection under Section 149(12) applies to both civil and criminal liability.

In cases of fraud, misrepresentation of financial statements, or illegal gratification, prosecution authorities must establish that the independent director had specific knowledge of the wrongdoing and acted with intent or gross negligence. Mere association with the board at the time wrongdoing occurred is insufficient to establish liability without demonstrating the director’s culpable mental state.

Conclusion

Independent directors have evolved from being mere compliance requirements to becoming cornerstone pillars of corporate governance in India. The Companies Act, 2013 and SEBI LODR Regulations have created a robust framework defining who can serve as independent directors, what responsibilities they must discharge, and how their independence is preserved through tenure limits, conduct standards, and liability protections.

As you’ve seen throughout this guide, true independence goes beyond satisfying formal criteria listed in Section 149(6). It requires personal integrity, professional competence, courage to voice dissenting opinions, and commitment to acting in the best interests of all stakeholders rather than yielding to promoter or management pressure. For companies, appointing effective independent directors isn’t about ticking compliance boxes—it’s about building boards that challenge assumptions, provide strategic insights, and safeguard long-term value creation.

Whether you’re an aspiring independent director evaluating your eligibility, a company secretary ensuring compliance with appointment requirements, or a legal professional advising clients on board composition, understanding the nuances of independent director meaning, qualifications, and responsibilities is essential. The regulatory framework will continue evolving as corporate governance practices mature, but the fundamental principle remains constant: independent directors exist to bring objectivity, expertise, and accountability to boardrooms, ensuring companies are governed in ways that benefit all stakeholders equitably.

Frequently Asked Questions

Who is eligible to be an independent director?

A person with appropriate skills, knowledge, and integrity who is not a promoter, not related to promoters/directors, has no material pecuniary relationship with the company (except sitting fees under prescribed limits), has not been a KMP/employee in the past three years, and meets all criteria under Section 149(6) of the Companies Act, 2013.

Can a promoter’s relative become an independent director?

No, a person who is related to the promoters or directors of the company, or of its holding, subsidiary, or associate companies cannot be appointed as an independent director. The term “relative” is defined under Section 2(77) and includes spouse, children, parents, siblings, and their spouses.

What is the maximum tenure of an independent director?

An independent director can hold office for a maximum of five consecutive years and is eligible for reappointment for one more term of five consecutive years (total ten years). After two consecutive terms, they must observe a three-year cooling-off period before being reappointed as an independent director in the same company.

How much sitting fee can an independent director receive?

Independent directors can receive sitting fees up to ₹1,00,000 per board or committee meeting as specified in Section 197 of the Companies Act, 2013. They may also receive commission if authorized by the Articles of Association and approved by shareholders, provided the total remuneration doesn’t create a material pecuniary relationship.

Are independent directors required to retire by rotation?

No, independent directors do not retire by rotation. Section 152 of the Companies Act, 2013 specifically excludes independent directors from the rotational retirement requirement applicable to other directors. They serve fixed terms of five years subject to reappointment.

What committees must have independent directors?

Under SEBI LODR, the Audit Committee must have a majority of independent directors with an independent director as chairperson. The Nomination and Remuneration Committee must have at least half independent directors. The CSR Committee (where applicable) must have at least one independent director. The Stakeholder Relationship Committee benefits from independent director participation though specific composition requirements vary.

Can a practicing CA or CS become an independent director?

Yes, practicing Chartered Accountants and Company Secretaries can be appointed as independent directors, provided they or their firms have not provided professional services (statutory audit, internal audit, legal consulting) to the company or its group companies during the preceding three financial years. After this cooling period, they can serve while continuing their practice.

What is the 3-year cooling period for independent directors?

The three-year cooling period applies to several categories: persons who were KMPs or employees of the company cannot be appointed as independent directors until three years after leaving employment; professionals whose firms provided services to the company must wait three years after ending the service relationship; and independent directors who completed two consecutive terms must wait three years before reappointment in the same company.

How many companies can an independent director serve in?

An independent director can serve in a maximum of seven listed companies simultaneously. If a person is serving as a whole-time director in any listed company, they can hold independent directorships in only three listed companies. The overall limit under Section 165 is 20 directorships including both public and private companies.

Is there an age limit for independent directors?

Under the Companies Act, 2013, any person above 18 years can be an independent director with no maximum age limit. However, for listed companies, SEBI LODR requires special resolution approval for appointing or continuing directors beyond 75 years of age. The explanatory statement must justify why the person should serve beyond 75 years.

Are independent directors personally liable for company decisions?

Section 149(12) limits independent director liability to acts of omission or commission that occurred with their knowledge (through board processes), consent, or connivance, or where they failed to act diligently. They are not liable for operational decisions they weren’t aware of or matters where they exercised due diligence in their oversight role.

What is a material relationship for independent directors?

A material relationship is any financial, personal, or professional connection with the company, its promoters, or management that could compromise the director’s ability to exercise objective, independent judgment. This includes pecuniary relationships exceeding 10% of the director’s income, business dealings, consulting relationships, or close personal ties that might create conflicts of interest or undue influence.

What happens if an independent director loses independence?

If circumstances arise that cause an independent director to no longer meet the independence criteria under Section 149(6), they must immediately inform the board. The board must evaluate the situation, and if independence is indeed compromised, the director must vacate the office. The company must fill the vacancy within three months or at the next board meeting, whichever is later.

Table of Contents