Independent director liability requires actual involvement or knowledge; mere board or audit committee membership is not enough.

An independent non-executive director cannot be fastened with regulatory liability for alleged fraud or non-disclosure merely because of board membership or audit committee association; liability requires evidence of actual participation, knowledge, or involvement in the impugned transaction. On the record, the GDR issue and related pledge and loan arrangements were not shown to have been placed before the audit committee, and no material linked the director to day-to-day management or the alleged misconduct. Section 177(4) of the Companies Act, 2013 could not be applied to a transaction that predated its enactment. The penalty and debarment were therefore unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether a non-executive independent director, who was also associated with the audit committee, could be fastened with liability for penalty and debarment arising out of the GDR scheme and the alleged non-disclosure of the pledge and loan agreements.

Analysis: The liability found by the adjudicating authority and the Whole Time Member was based on the assumption that the appellant, by reason of his audit committee role and long association with the company, was responsible for monitoring the end use of GDR proceeds and for ensuring disclosure of the arrangements with the bank and the subscriber. The record did not show that the GDR issue or the underlying arrangements were placed before the audit committee. Mere membership of the board or attendance at meetings did not establish participation in day-to-day affairs or knowledge of the pledge and loan agreements. Section 177(4) of the Companies Act, 2013 could not be relied upon for a transaction that preceded its enactment, and responsibility could not be inferred on conjecture in the absence of evidence linking the appellant to the alleged fraudulent conduct.

Conclusion: The appellant could not be held liable for the alleged violations, and the penalty and debarment imposed on him were unsustainable.

Final Conclusion: The impugned directions were set aside insofar as they related to the appellant, and the appeals succeeded.

Ratio Decidendi: An independent director cannot be visited with regulatory liability for alleged fraud or non-disclosure unless there is evidence of actual participation, knowledge, or involvement in the company's day-to-day affairs or in the impugned transaction itself.

---