Extension of vigil mechanism to additional classes of companies is a policy decision within the government's legislative domain.

The Petitioners, former employees of HP India Sales Private Ltd. and GlaxoSmithKline Consumer Healthcare Ltd. respectively, alleged they were subjected to retaliation and eventually terminated after reporting unethical practices and environmental violations.

They challenged the constitutional validity and adequacy of the whistle-blower/vigil mechanism framework under the Companies Act, 2013.

Specifically, they argued that the law fails to provide sufficient safeguards against victimisation and erroneously excludes unlisted or private companies from the mandatory vigil mechanism requirement.

1. Whether the court can issue a Mandamus directing the Government to extend the mandatory vigil mechanism to categories of companies (such as unlisted private companies) beyond those currently prescribed by statute and rules.

2. Whether the existing statutory framework under Section 177 of the Companies Act, 2013, provides an adequate inbuilt safety mechanism for whistle-blowers.

The Court applied Section 177(9) of the Companies Act, 2013, which mandates a vigil mechanism for listed companies and prescribed classes of companies.

It further applied Section 177(10), which requires such mechanisms to provide "adequate safeguards against victimisation".

It further relied on Rule 7 of the Companies (Meetings of Board and its Powers) Rules, 2014, which extends this requirement to companies accepting public deposits or those with bank borrowings exceeding Rs. 50 crores.

Additionally, the Court noted Regulation 22(1) of the SEBI (LODR) Regulations, 2015, which governs vigil mechanisms for listed entities.

The Court observed that the legislature and the Executive have already codified a vigil mechanism that includes oversight by Audit Committees (comprising a majority of Independent Directors) to ensure impartiality.

Regarding the Petitioners' demand to expand the scope of these laws to all unlisted companies, the Court reasoned that such an extension is a matter of "policy decision" followed by legislative measures.

It held that a judicial order cannot undertake a legislative exercise, as such decisions require stakeholder consultation and an assessment of the nature of complaints within specific sectors.

The Court emphasized that while it cannot compel the Government to change the law, it can direct the authorities to review the policy.

It held that determining which legal entities must mandatorily establish a vigil mechanism falls within the domain of Government policy.

The Writ Petitions were disposed of with a direction to the Ministry of Corporate Affairs to undertake a stakeholder consultation and decide, within a reasonable period, whether the vigil mechanism should be extended to additional classes of companies.