In just over a decade, India has moved from the periphery to the centre of global economic conversations. From the 11th-largest economy in 2014, it is now among the largest and fastest-growing major economies. Multinational firms are expanding their presence, institutional investors are increasing allocations, and Indian companies are looking outward with greater confidence. India’s scale and sustained GDP growth have made it central to global investment opportunities. The direction is clear: India is on track to become one of the world’s three largest economies in the coming decade, with success depending less on potential and more on execution.
This confidence has been underpinned not only by economic momentum but also by a decade of policy reform. Simpler processes, lower regulatory friction, and a more rules-based framework helped improve India’s ease of doing business ranking from 142 in 2014 to 63 within five years. Investment trends reflect this progress, with FDI rising from about $36 billion in 2013-14 to over $81 billion in 2024-25. The challenge is no longer attracting investment but sustaining it. As capital flows become more dynamic, India’s ability to retain investor confidence will depend on whether its regulatory framework remains clear, consistent, and proportionate.
Shift in the nature of growth
What has evolved more quietly is the nature of that growth. India is no longer seen only as a market driven by domestic demand, but as a strategic hub for global business. Global capability centres are expanding from support functions into analytics, engineering, and product development, while investments are growing in artificial intelligence, digital infrastructure, electronics manufacturing, and the semiconductor value chain. These long-term commitments are built not only on growth, but also on the reliability and predictability of the systems that sustain it.
Building investor confidence
Corporate law reforms have been central to this transformation, balancing ease of doing business with stronger governance standards. Over the years, reforms have sought to reduce compliance burdens while strengthening market integrity. The latest amendments proposed under the Corporate Laws (Amendment) Bill, 2026, largely continue that approach. The decriminalisation of procedural lapses lowers friction without weakening accountability. At the same time, stronger disclosure requirements, clearer articulation of directors’ responsibilities, and tighter oversight of related-party transactions reinforce confidence in corporate governance. Together, these measures reinforce a clear direction: making the system more facilitative without compromising credibility.
No expiry date for expertise
However, the proposed three-year cooling-off period warrants consideration not because it affects a particular profession, but its broader economic implications. Modern economies depend on the efficient deployment of specialised knowledge. Across technology, manufacturing, infrastructure, financial markets, and cross-border transactions, businesses rely on expertise built over years and applied across sectors. Restricting professional engagement long after an audit relationship ends risks disrupting that flow, increasing costs, duplicating effort, and reducing continuity during periods of growth and transformation.
The proposal also departs from international practice. Major economies, including the UK, the European Union, the US, Australia and Singapore, have strengthened governance by managing conflicts of interest rather than imposing multi-year restrictions after engagements conclude. As India positions itself as a hub for AI, semiconductors, manufacturing, and digital services, policy should facilitate the movement of knowledge, talent, and expertise across the economy.
The proposed restrictions on non-audit services raise a similar concern. By applying broad constraints across diverse advisory services without adequately differentiating based on risk, the framework risks becoming a blunt instrument — limiting access to specialised expertise, increasing costs, and fragmenting service delivery without effectively addressing areas of genuine concern.
Good regulation protects markets; great regulation does so without constraining growth. The question is not whether governance should be strengthened, but if it should be strengthened by limiting access to expertise in a way that no major economy does. In a knowledge economy, expertise is capital. Public policy should be careful before putting it in quarantine.
Small firms: Ease vs oversight
The treatment of small companies also illustrates this balance. In recent years, thresholds have been broadened and compliance requirements eased to reduce the burden on smaller firms, a shift that is both necessary and welcome.
But as a larger set of companies comes under lighter regulatory requirements, the balance between ease and oversight becomes more sensitive. Over time, the question will be whether this flexibility remains appropriate as some of these firms grow and take on greater complexity.
India remains a compelling investment destination, underpinned by its scale, growth trajectory, and talent base. Sustaining that advantage will depend as much on the quality and consistency of its regulatory framework as on the strength of its economy. India has made significant progress by getting the broad direction of reform right; the next phase will depend on how carefully that direction is calibrated. The question is no longer whether capital will come to India. It will. The question is whether the system gives investors the confidence and certainty to deploy it at scale.