Class Action

What is 'Class action'

A class action is a lawsuit where one or more people sue on behalf of a larger group (the "class") who have similar legal claims, allowing many small claims to be handled efficiently as one case, saving costs, increasing bargaining power, and providing access to justice for those who couldn't afford to sue individually. A "lead plaintiff" represents the group, which must meet specific criteria (numerosity, commonality, typicality, adequate representation) for the court to certify the class, often involving defective products, securities fraud, or civil rights violations.

Official definition of class action

Class action as defined in legislation

Though the term 'class action' is not explicitly defined, provisions regarding the same are provided across multiple legislations.

Companies Act, 2013

Indian company law expressly recognises class action through Section 245 of the Companies Act, 2013, which enables a prescribed number of members or depositors to file an application before the National Company Law Tribunal on behalf of themselves and other similarly placed persons. Such a class action may be instituted against the company, its directors, auditors, audit firms, or experts and advisors for acts that are fraudulent, unlawful, ultra vires, or prejudicial to the interests of the company, its members, or depositors, and the provision empowers the Tribunal to grant preventive, declaratory, and compensatory reliefs.

Consumer Protection Act, 2019

While the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 does not use the term “class action”, it statutorily recognises representative consumer complaints under Sections 2(5)(v) and 35(1)(c), allowing one or more consumers to file a complaint on behalf of numerous consumers having the same interest, subject to the permission of the Consumer Commission. This mechanism operates as a functional equivalent of a class action by enabling collective redress for unfair trade practices, defective goods, or deficient services affecting a class of consumers.

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908

The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 provides the procedural basis for collective litigation through Order I Rule 8, which permits one or more persons to sue or be sued in a representative capacity where numerous persons share the same interest in a suit, subject to court approval and notice to all interested parties. Although not termed a class action, this provision embodies the representative action principle and has historically facilitated group litigation in civil disputes in India.

Legal provisions relating to 'class action'

Companies Act, 2013

Section 245(1) empowers a prescribed number of members or depositors, or any class of them, to file a class action application before the NCLT where the company’s management or affairs are being conducted in a manner prejudicial to the interests of the company, its members, or depositors. The Tribunal may grant preventive, declaratory, and compensatory reliefs, including restraining ultra vires or unlawful acts, invalidating resolutions obtained by misstatement or suppression of facts, preventing implementation of such resolutions, enforcing compliance with the Act and member resolutions, and awarding damages or compensation against the company, its directors, auditors, audit firms, or other experts and advisors for fraudulent, unlawful, or wrongful acts or omissions, along with any other relief deemed appropriate.

Section 245(2) - Where members or depositors seek damages, compensation, or other relief against an audit firm in a class action, liability is joint and several, extending not only to the firm but also to each partner who was involved in making any improper or misleading statement in the audit report or who engaged in fraudulent, unlawful, or wrongful conduct.

Section 245(3) prescribes the minimum numerical and financial thresholds for initiating a class action. In companies with share capital, an application may be filed by at least 100 members, or such prescribed percentage of total members (whichever is lower), or by members holding a prescribed percentage of issued share capital, provided all dues on shares are paid; in companies without share capital, at least one-fifth of the total members must apply. For depositors, the application requires at least 100 depositors, or a prescribed percentage of total depositors (whichever is lower), or depositors to whom the company owes a prescribed percentage of total deposits.

Section 245(4) - While deciding a class action application, the Tribunal must assess factors including the good faith of the applicant member or depositor, the involvement of persons other than company directors or officers, whether the claim is one that can be pursued individually rather than through a class action, and the views of disinterested members or depositors. The Tribunal must also consider, where the alleged act or omission is prospective or already committed, whether such conduct could be authorised or ratified by the company in the given circumstances.

Section 245(5) - Upon admission of a class action application, the Tribunal must ensure public notice to all members or depositors of the class, consolidate all similar applications across jurisdictions into a single proceeding, and facilitate the selection or appointment of a lead applicant. It bars multiple class actions on the same cause of action and provides that the costs and expenses of the class action shall be borne by the company or any other person responsible for the oppressive or wrongful conduct.

Section 245 (6)-(10) - Orders passed by the Tribunal in a class action are binding on the company and all associated stakeholders, including members, depositors, auditors, audit firms, experts, and advisors. Non-compliance attracts stringent penalties, including substantial fines for the company and imprisonment and fines for defaulting officers. The Tribunal may dismiss frivolous or vexatious applications with costs imposed on the applicant. The class action mechanism does not apply to banking companies, and, subject to compliance with the section, applications may be initiated by any person, group, or association representing affected persons in respect of the acts or omissions specified under the provision.

Class action as defined in official documents

Parliamentary Standing Committee on Finance (2010–11) 21st Report on the Companies Bill, 2009

Class action suits were recommended to provide an effective collective redressal mechanism allowing shareholders and depositors to act jointly against fraudulent or oppressive actions of companies and their management, particularly where individual litigation would be ineffective or economically unviable.

Class action as defined in case laws

Ramesh B. Desai v. Bipin Vadilal Mehta

The Supreme Court explained the concept of representative or class litigation as one where persons having the same interest are allowed to litigate through one or more representatives, and the decision binds all similarly situated persons. The Court emphasised that the foundation of such actions lies in community of interest and avoidance of multiplicity of proceedings, principles that later inform statutory class actions under company law.

Chairman, Tamil Nadu Housing Board v. T.N. Ganapathy

The Supreme Court recognised representative proceedings as a form of collective redress where a common grievance affects a large group. The Court held that such actions are justified to prevent repetitive litigation and to ensure that persons with identical interests are bound by a single adjudication, reflecting the essential rationale behind class actions.

Akhil Bhartiya Soshit Karamchari Sangh (Railway) v. Union of India

Although arising in the context of service law, the Supreme Court endorsed the legitimacy of collective and representative claims where a large class of persons suffers a common legal injury. The judgment reinforced the principle that courts may entertain actions brought on behalf of a class when individual litigation would be impractical, a core justification for class actions.

Brigade Enterprises Ltd. v. Anil Kumar Virmani

The NCLAT expressly acknowledged that Section 245 of the Companies Act, 2013 introduces class action suits into Indian company law. The Tribunal clarified that the provision enables members or depositors to collectively seek remedies for prejudicial conduct, marking a shift from traditional individual shareholder remedies to a statutory class action framework.

Union of India v. Namit Sharma

The Supreme Court reiterated that representative proceedings are necessary where the nature of the right and the number of affected persons make individual enforcement ineffective. While not a company law case, the judgment reaffirmed the constitutional and procedural legitimacy of class-based adjudication in India.

Consumer Education and Research Centre v. Union of India

The Supreme Court entertained claims brought on behalf of a large class of workers, recognising that collective adjudication is essential to secure substantive justice for dispersed and economically weaker groups. This case exemplifies the judicial acceptance of class-oriented litigation in India even prior to explicit statutory class actions.

Types of class action

Injunctive / Preventive Class Action

This type seeks non-monetary relief to restrain or prevent unlawful, ultra vires, or prejudicial acts affecting a class, especially where harm is ongoing or imminent. The focus is on future compliance rather than compensation.

Compensatory / Damages Class Action

This class action seeks monetary compensation or damages for losses suffered by a group due to fraudulent, unlawful, or wrongful conduct, enabling collective recovery where individual claims would be impractical.

Declaratory Class Action

A declaratory class action seeks a judicial declaration of rights or legal status, such as declaring resolutions void or acts illegal, with binding effect on the entire class.

Representative (Opt-in) Class Action

Only those persons who expressly join or authorise the action are represented and bound by the outcome. This model emphasises consent and procedural control.

Public Interest / Social Justice Class Action

This form addresses systemic or collective harm affecting disadvantaged or diffuse groups, often without strict identification of class members, and prioritises substantive justice over procedural formality.

Statutory Class Action

A statutory class action is expressly created by legislation, with defined thresholds, procedure, and remedies, leaving minimal discretion to courts on maintainability.

Sector-specific Class Action

These are class actions limited to specific legal fields (consumer, competition, environment, securities), tailored to sectoral needs and policy objectives.

International experience

United States

The United States has the most mature and expansive class action regime, governed primarily by Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. U.S. class actions allow opt-out proceedings, extensive monetary damages, contingency fees, jury trials, and settlement-driven enforcement, making them a powerful tool for consumer, securities, antitrust, and civil rights litigation. Courts emphasise numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy of representation, and judgments bind absent class members subject to due process safeguards.

United Kingdom

The UK traditionally resisted U.S.-style class actions, preferring Group Litigation Orders (GLOs) under the Civil Procedure Rules, which are opt-in and procedurally conservative. However, competition law marked a shift with opt-out collective proceedings before the Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) under the Competition Act, 1998, allowing damages claims for competition law breaches. The UK model emphasises judicial control, proportionality, and avoidance of abusive litigation.

European Union

The EU expressly avoids the term “class action” and instead adopts representative actions through Directive (EU) 2020/1828. Actions may be brought only by qualified entities (e.g., consumer organisations), primarily on an opt-in basis, though Member States may allow opt-out for domestic cases. The focus is on injunctive and redress measures, strong safeguards against abuse, and prohibition of U.S.-style punitive damages.

Canada

Canada has a well-established class action regime at the provincial level, beginning with Ontario’s Class Proceedings Act, 1992. Canadian courts allow opt-out class actions, damages, and contingency fees, but exercise strict certification scrutiny and cost controls. The Canadian model is often viewed as a moderated version of the U.S. approach, balancing access to justice with litigation discipline.

Australia

Australia permits class actions under Part IVA of the Federal Court of Australia Act, 1976, adopting an opt-out model similar to the U.S., but without juries and with stronger judicial case management. Australia has seen significant growth in shareholder and securities class actions, though recent reforms aim to curb excessive litigation funding and settlement abuse.

Technological Transformation and Initiatives

The technological transformation of class action mechanisms is primarily reflected in the digitisation of tribunals and courts, e-filing systems, and online notice and case management frameworks, which enhance access, efficiency, and transparency in collective litigation. The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) has adopted electronic filing and virtual hearings, enabling members or depositors across jurisdictions to participate in class actions under Section 245 of the Companies Act, 2013 without physical presence. Similarly, Consumer Commissions under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 support e-Daakhil, an online portal that facilitates representative consumer complaints, electronic service of notices, and digital tracking of cases.

Government initiatives such as e-Courts Mission Mode Project and Virtual Courts improve case consolidation, public notice dissemination, and cost efficiency—key procedural requirements in class actions. The use of electronic public notices, online consolidation of similar claims, and digital record-keeping assists tribunals in managing large claimant groups and appointing lead applicants, as mandated under Section 245(5). Regulatory bodies like SEBI increasingly rely on technology-driven grievance redress mechanisms (e.g., SCORES) to address investor complaints collectively, indirectly supplementing formal class actions by enabling market-wide corrective action.

Despite these advances, India’s class action framework remains procedurally cautious and statute-driven, with limited use of advanced tools such as automated claimant identification, data analytics for harm quantification, or opt-out digital enrolment. Nevertheless, ongoing digitisation initiatives signal a gradual shift toward technology-enabled collective redress, strengthening accessibility and enforcement while preserving judicial oversight.

Researches that engage with 'class action'

Benefits, challenges & effectiveness of class action suits in enhancing corporate governance in India

This paper assesses how class actions under Section 245 of the Companies Act, 2013 can improve corporate governance in India. It discusses how class suits empower minority shareholders, arose in response to scandals like Satyam, and highlights both the strengths and limitations of the current legal framework. The author argues for lower eligibility thresholds, clearer provisions, litigation funding mechanisms, and greater awareness to make class actions more effective.

Class action suits – genesis, analysis and comparison

This working paper traces the historical origin of class actions (from the U.S. to India) and examines how Section 245 was incorporated into Indian law in response to corporate scandals. It compares Indian law with international models and stakeholders’ roles in such suits.

Class action suits by shareholders in India

Analysing class actions introduced in India, this article argues that current law is only a “half-hearted attempt” compared to foreign jurisdictions. It raises questions about cross-border applicability and the deterrence of frivolous litigation.

Class Action Suit: An Analysis

This paper explains the concept, purpose, and procedural foundations of class actions in India, comparing them with individual lawsuits. It discusses Section 245, the role of class representatives, and uses the Satyam scandal as a motivating background.

A Critical Analysis of Class Action Suit with Reference to Satyam Scandal

This research examines how the Satyam scandal exposed gaps in shareholder protection and motivated the inclusion of class actions in Indian corporate law. It also discusses legal challenges and suggests reforms.

Effectiveness of Class Actions in India

This article empirically and doctrinally evaluates the limited use of class actions under Section 245, identifying procedural hurdles such as high numerical thresholds, cost allocation, and lack of litigation funding. The authors argue for incremental reform rather than wholesale adoption of foreign models.

Challenges

High Threshold Requirements

Section 245 of the Companies Act, 2013 prescribes minimum numerical and shareholding thresholds for members and depositors to initiate a class action. These requirements often exclude small and dispersed shareholders, making access to the remedy difficult in practice, especially in large listed companies with fragmented ownership.

Limited Awareness and Usage

Despite being statutorily available since 2013, class actions remain rarely invoked before the NCLT. Shareholders and depositors often lack awareness of this remedy, and there is limited jurisprudence clarifying procedural and substantive aspects, resulting in underutilisation.

Absence of Opt-out Mechanism

Indian law follows an opt-in model for representative actions, requiring express participation or consent. This significantly reduces the size and effectiveness of the class and limits deterrence, unlike opt-out models in jurisdictions such as the U.S. (though such comparisons are policy-level).

Procedural Complexity and Delays

Class actions involve public notice, consolidation of claims, appointment of lead applicants, and cost allocation, all of which increase procedural complexity. Delays before the NCLT further dilute the effectiveness of collective redress.

Cost and Funding Constraints

India does not have a developed framework for litigation funding or contingency fees, making it financially difficult for class representatives to sustain long proceedings. Although Section 245 allows costs to be borne by the company in certain cases, the initial burden remains a deterrent.

Fear of Frivolous or Vexatious Litigation

To prevent abuse, Section 245(8) empowers the Tribunal to dismiss frivolous applications with costs. However, this safeguard can also discourage genuine claimants, especially minority shareholders, who fear adverse cost consequences.

Exclusion of Banking Companies

Section 245 expressly excludes banking companies from its ambit, leaving depositors of banks without access to statutory class actions, despite the systemic importance of banking failures.

Fragmented Framework Across Laws

India lacks a unified class action statute. Collective redress is scattered across company law, consumer law, CPC, and regulatory mechanisms, leading to inconsistency in procedure, remedies, and enforceability.

Limited Compensatory Outcomes

Indian class actions focus largely on preventive and declaratory relief, with fewer instances of substantial compensation. This weakens deterrence and reduces incentives for collective enforcement.

Way ahead

Broaden the Statutory Framework

India should consider a comprehensive class action statute or expand existing laws to cover securities fraud, competition damages, environmental harm, and mass consumer claims, rather than limiting class actions to company law.

Rationalise Threshold Requirements

The numerical and financial thresholds under Section 245 should be lowered or made flexible, particularly for listed companies with dispersed shareholding, to enhance access to justice.

Introduce Clear Procedural Rules

Dedicated Class Action Rules for NCLT proceedings should be framed, covering certification, notice, settlement approval, and distribution of compensation, to reduce uncertainty and delays.

Enable Regulated Litigation Funding

A transparent framework for third-party litigation funding, with safeguards against abuse, can help overcome cost barriers and encourage meritorious class actions.

Leverage Technology

Expanded use of e-filing, digital public notices, online claimant registration, and virtual hearings can significantly improve participation, consolidation, and efficiency in class actions.

Judicial Capacity Building

Specialised training for NCLT members and registry staff on handling class actions can ensure consistent and effective adjudication.

Reconsider Banking Exclusion

The blanket exclusion of banking companies should be reviewed, at least for depositor protection in cases of systemic misconduct or misrepresentation.

Awareness and Institutional Support

Regulators such as MCA and SEBI should actively disseminate guidance on class actions, while allowing recognised associations and investor bodies to initiate actions on behalf of affected classes.

References

Contributors & review status

Curated / edited bynot yet recorded

Peer reviewpending

Project reviewpending

Expert reviewpending

Page created 2026-08-21  ·  Last updated 2026-08-21