India Business Law Journal – April 2026

The lawmen cometh

Corporate investigations: Are you prepared for the knock at the door?

Recent years have seen government agencies take a more proactive stance with regard to enforcement actions. Corporate investigations have increased in frequency, with more co-ordinated investigations and often multiple agencies acting in parallel. For businesses, this means preparedness is not a compliance formality, it is a core business function.

A company’s responses, especially in the first few hours of an investigation, are critical and can shape legal outcomes for years. This month’s Cover story, titled Knock knock, highlights how India’s enforcement regime, led by the Enforcement Directorate, the Central Bureau of Investigation and the Income Tax Department, is perceived as increasingly assertive by the corporate world.

Legal experts emphasise that planning in advance is the best defence, taking into account common lapses and current internal frameworks. Clear documentation, robust compliance frameworks and disciplined data management help the company withstand regulatory scrutiny.

Companies need a clear response architecture with defined roles, trained personnel and legal gatekeeping to manage interactions with investigators. Maintaining a parallel internal record of searches, asserting privilege promptly, and managing digital data access are all critical safeguards.

In Guarding the nest eggs, Sanhita Katyal, of Axis Max Life Insurance, notes that as insurers digitise operations, cyber risks are increasingly complex and consequential.

Life insurance companies that store sensitive personal, medical and financial data are prime targets for sophisticated cybercriminals, giving rise to identity theft, fraud, reputational harm and long-term financial loss for customers.

As insurers are strengthening governance and compliance frameworks, legal and compliance teams now play a central role in interpreting evolving regulations such as the Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act, 2023, and Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority of India regulations, while ensuring business practices remain secure and compliant.

In Playing catch-up, Abhinav Shukla, the legal head at investment fund Alpha Wave Global, underscores a critical gap in India’s early-stage investment ecosystem – the absence of standardised documentation.

While the US and UK benefit from widely accepted frameworks enabling faster deal closures, Indian transactions often face prolonged negotiations due to bespoke drafting and a lack of shared reference points. The author argues that standardisation need not eliminate flexibility but must provide for a baseline framework.

At the policy level, India is also recalibrating how it balances economic security with the need for capital inflow. Rajiv Malik, the legal leader at LG Electronics, examines the evolution of Press Note 3 (PN3) in Policy, paradox and participation.

Introduced during the covid-19 pandemic to prevent opportunistic acquisitions, PN3 had imposed strict approval requirements on investments linked to land-bordering jurisdictions. While well-intentioned, its broad application created delays and uncertainty, particularly for global funds with diversified investor bases.

Recent amendments, however, have signalled a shift. By introducing clearer thresholds for beneficial ownership, the framework can reduce friction and retain oversight. The revised framework reflects a more pragmatic approach, highlighting calibrated participation of foreign capital to support domestic capability while maintaining regulatory safeguards.

As cross-border transactions grow more complex, our Arbitration Guide turns to the strategic role of arbitration design in managing dispute risk.

Ankit Goyal, of international law firm RPC, examines how the choice of seat, venue and institution shapes arbitration outcomes, particularly in the India-Singapore corridor. The article highlights the need to move beyond the domestic versus international distinction to the architecture of the arbitration clause itself.

The seat determines the legal framework and court supervision, with Singapore preferred for its predictability and minimal intervention, while India offers familiarity but greater judicial interface. Clear drafting is critical, as ambiguities around the seat or governing law can undermine enforceability. Institutional arbitration often ensures greater efficiency than ad hoc processes, making clause design a key strategic consideration.

Next, the focus shifts to the legal foundations and evolving reform agenda shaping arbitration in India. Sumeet Kachwaha, of Kachwaha & Partners, outlines how India’s Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, rooted in UNCITRAL frameworks, was designed to minimise court intervention and align with global standards. While early reforms strengthened efficiency, subsequent amendments introduced complexities including rigid timelines and overlapping conflict-of-interest provisions.

Kachwaha argues for more measured reform, including streamlining multi-layered court challenges and allowing tribunals limited review powers, to better align India with international arbitration practice.