Abstract

This article advances a thesis that has received insufficient attention in Indian corporate law scholarship: That Section 135 ofthe Companies Act, 2013 is structurally misconfigured to deliver the sustainable development outcomes it promises. Theargument here is that India’s CSR regime suffers from three interconnected failures. First, it is architecturally compliance drivenrather than outcome driven, measuring what companies spend rather than what communities gain. Second, it treats CSR as astandalone obligation detached from the broader constitutional framework of Part IV and Part IVA, missing the opportunity toground CSR in enforceable fundamental duties and directive principles. Third, the absence of mandatory due diligenceobligations creates structurally hollow accountability architecture. This article advances a thesis that has received insufficientattention in Indian corporate law scholarship: That Section 135 of the Companies Act, 2013 is structurally misconfigured todeliver the sustainable development outcomes it promises. The argument here is that India’s CSR regime suffers from threeinterconnected failures. First, it is architecturally compliance driven rather than outcome driven, measuring what companiesspends rather than what communities gain. Second, it treats CSR as a standalone obligation detached from the broaderconstitutional framework of Part IV and Part IVA, missing the opportunity to ground CSR in enforceable fundamental duties anddirective principles. Third, the absence of mandatory due diligence obligations creates a structurally hollow accountabilityarchitecture.