On April 17, 2020, the Department for Promotion of Industry and Internal Trade (“DPIIT”) issued the Press Note No. 3 (2020 Series) (“PN3”) with the primary objective of “curbing opportunistic takeovers and acquisitions of Indian companies due to the COVID-19 pandemic”. PN3 amended the Consolidated Foreign Direct Investment Policy of India, 2017 (“FDI Policy”) and made government approval a mandatory requirement for foreign direct investments (“FDI”) originating from countries sharing land border with India. This marked a significant deviation from India’s previous FDI policy and came against the backdrop of the economic and political challenges posed by the COVID-19 outbreak and the border conflict with China in 2020. However, as things stand today, there is a need to reflect on PN3’s impact on India’s FDI landscape and consider whether this framework needs modifications.

Key Amendments

Paragraph 3.1.1 of the FDI Policy was amended pursuant to PN3 to mandate prior government approval for (i) investments made by entities incorporated in countries sharing land border with India; or (ii) where the “beneficial owner” of the investment in India is situated in or is a citizen of such country. Further, it was mandated that a direct or indirect transfer of ownership of existing or future FDI resulting in the beneficial ownership falling under the above restrictions will also require prior Government approval. For the purpose of PN3, India recognizes Pakistan, Afghanistan, Nepal, Bhutan, China (including Hong Kong), Bangladesh and Myanmar as countries sharing land border with India (“Bordering Countries”).

In 2022, the Ministry of Corporate Affairs (“MCA”) introduced certain amendments pursuant to PN3:

In 2023, the DPIIT revised the standard operating procedure for processing FDI approval applications in India (“SOP”). The SOP seeks extensive information in the applications regarding beneficial ownership from the Bordering Countries, which inter alia includes: (i) entity wise details of the existing shareholders, investors, directors, key managerial personnel, etc., of all upstream entities until the ultimate beneficial owner, and (ii) details of shareholders belonging to or having beneficial ownership in the Bordering Countries, along with the ownership structure, place of incorporation or citizenship details of such entities and individuals. For the non-PN3 proposals, a broad declaration is required to be submitted confirming that none of investors or shareholders of the Indian investee company and the foreign investor, including their respective beneficial owners (regardless of their shareholding), belong to the Bordering Counties.

Key Shortcomings

Procedural aspects

While the DPIIT prescribes an indicative timeline of up to 12 weeks in the SOP, decisions on PN3 proposals have generally taken far longer. In many cases, PN3 proposals have remained pending without a decision for several years.

For example, in April 2024, media reports quoting an anonymous source noted that out of a total 526 proposals received under PN3 since its introduction, 124 proposals were approved, and 201 proposals were rejected. The remaining 200 proposals remained pending, in some cases for several years.

One key procedural shortcoming has been that there is no regular public data on PN3 proposals, or indeed any FDI proposals. Data in the public domain on PN3 applications has largely been based on responses to questions in Parliament or media reports quoting anonymous sources.

It is imperative that decisions are issued one way or another on PN3 rather than keeping them pending. Pending proposals without any decision leads to lack of clarity on the objectives sought to be achieved. It is also critical that the rationale for decisions on PN3 proposals be made public so that this can inform future applications under PN3.

Substantive aspects

PN3 covers investments where the “beneficial owner” is situated in or is a citizen of one of the Bordering Countries. The term “beneficial owner” has not been defined under PN3 and has different meanings under different laws in India. For example, the Companies Act, 2013, as amended, defines a “significant beneficial owner” as someone with a direct or indirect shareholding of 10% or more in the investing entity whereas the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (“PMLA”) defines “beneficial owner” as the owner or holder of ultimate control over the investing entity. The rules framed under the PMLA earlier referred to a 25% threshold for ascertaining “control” – this threshold was revised to 10% in March 2023. The absence of any formal guidance under PN3 for ascertaining “beneficial ownership” has resulted in the authorized dealers bank adopting an inconsistent approach while identifying restricted investments under PN3. This significantly impacts foreign investors, private equity or venture funds and listed entities, where entities or individuals from the Bordering Countries might have miniscule or passive participation and still attract the restrictions of PN3 as a technical matter.

Existing investors from the Bordering Countries may also have call or put options over shares of Indian investee companies or may seek to participate in bonus or rights issue of such companies to maintain their existing shareholding. However, pursuant to PN3, these would trigger prior government approval and any additional investments made by such investors in their existing wholly owned subsidiaries in India would also trigger such approval requirement.

The Economic Survey

While the stated objective of PN3 was to prevent opportunistic takeovers by investors from Bordering Countries (specifically China) due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the result has been that investments from China accounted for 0.37% of the total FDI inflow reported in India between April 2000 and March 2024. It is undeniable that national security concerns in relation to China have not abated; however other circumstances that prompted introduction of PN3 have changed significantly as the COVID-19 pandemic has abated and Indian companies have overcome the uncertainty brought by the global pandemic.

In this backdrop, recently the Economic Survey for 2023-2024 (“Economic Survey”) has proposed a contrasting approach to the government’s current stance on FDI investments from China. The Economic Survey, which is an annually published by the Ministry of Finance and prepared under the guidance of the chief economic advisor to the Government, has advocated for softening the stance on FDI inflows from China. It highlights India’s two choices to benefit from the China plus one strategy being pursued by many international companies: integrating into China's supply chain or promoting FDI from China.

The Economic Survey favors choosing FDI as a strategy to benefit from the China plus one approach rather than relying on trade. The Economic Survey notes that China is India's largest import partner, and the trade deficit with China has been rising. Further, with the western markets shifting their immediate sourcing away from China, it is more effective to have Chinese companies invest in India and then export products to the western markets. This is in contrast with India’s current practice of importing from China, adding minimal value, and then re-exporting such products.

Way Forward

The authors submit that there is a strong case to take a nuanced approach towards Chinese FDI, particularly in sectors in which such FDI could potentially assist in growth of Indian industry.

It has been suggested that the Government consider notifying a list of sectors and industries where it may permit Chinese investment without prior approval. Such a list would focus on sectors that would help indigenize manufacturing and not undermine national security concerns. Investment in these sectors would be permitted without scrutiny under PN3.

Other commentators have suggested that while a prior approval requirement be retained in all cases of investments from China, however consideration of PN3 proposals be substantially expedited and approvals be issued as a matter of course for investments in sectors which do not raise national security concerns – this approach could achieve a similar result.

Irrespective of the approach that is followed (or indeed a combination of such approaches), it is evident that a recalibration of the PN3 restrictions is imperative to help diversify supply chains and encourage domestic industry without, in any way, undermining or compromising national security concerns.

Authors: Rajat Sethi (Partner) and Oshika Nayak (Associate)