As many as 53 of India’s top 100 listed companies failed to disclose information relating to whistleblower complaints in their FY26 annual reports. A total of 1,129 complaints were reported across the companies covered by the survey, of which 13.37% remained unresolved at the end of the financial year.The findings of a report prepared by Excellence Enablers Pvt Ltd, a corporate governance advisory firm founded by former SEBI Chairman M Damodaran, raise serious questions about transparency, accountability and the effectiveness of corporate governance mechanisms in India Inc.While India’s corporate governance framework may look impressive in annual reports, board presentations and regulatory filings, a closer examination of disclosures by the country’s leading listed companies reveals significant gaps between compliance on paper and accountability in practice.The seventh edition of the Annual Corporate Governance Survey of Nifty 100 companies, prepared by Excellence Enablers, raises questions about board oversight, the functioning of independent directors, whistleblower mechanisms and the accountability of corporate managements.Whistleblower gapsPerhaps the most disturbing findings relate to whistleblower complaints, a critical mechanism through which employees and other stakeholders can flag financial irregularities, misconduct and governance failures without fear of retaliation.While 53 companies did not disclose information relating to whistleblower complaints in their FY26 annual reports, another 19 reported receiving no complaints. A nil number of complaints does not necessarily establish the absence of wrongdoing. However, the survey pointed out that it could also reflect employees’ reluctance to use the mechanism because of a lack of confidence in it or fear of victimisation.The number of whistleblower complaints reported across the companies covered by the survey rose from 303 in FY23 to 494 in FY24, 1,110 in FY25 and 1,129 in FY26. Of these, 13.37% remained pending at the end of FY26, compared with 7.76% in FY25, the report said.Story continues below this adThe increase in pending complaints raises questions about companies’ ability and willingness to investigate allegations and bring matters to a satisfactory conclusion. Only 46 companies conducted awareness programmes on insider trading in FY26, the report said.Board oversightThe weaknesses extend to the functioning of independent directors (IDs), who are expected to act as a counterweight to powerful promoters and executive management. Although the Companies Act and SEBI regulations provide for independent directors to meet separately in the absence of management, 40 companies continued to hold only one such meeting annually in each of the four financial years examined.“As on March 31, 2026, 17 companies (of which 12 were PSUs and 4 were PSBs) had less than the prescribed number of IDs. These companies included 4 PSUs which had no independent directors,” the report said.Further, 32 companies continued to hold their only separate meeting of independent directors in March in each of the four years. Holding a meeting merely to fulfil a statutory requirement, particularly towards the end of the financial year, raises questions about whether independent directors use this forum to meaningfully discuss governance concerns or simply tick a compliance box.Story continues below this adSuccession planning, another critical responsibility of boards, also remains a neglected area.According to the report, six companies did not disclose any details relating to succession planning in their annual reports throughout the four-year period. This is particularly worrying because unexpected departures of senior executives and key managerial personnel can disrupt business operations and undermine investor confidence.The quality of board oversight is also questionable when it comes to transparency at shareholder meetings. The survey points out that virtual annual general meetings have substantially reduced direct interaction between shareholders, directors and senior management. It has recommended a hybrid model to facilitate greater participation and meaningful engagement.Shareholder scrutinyShareholder oversight is another area of concern. In FY26, companies put forward 1,208 resolutions seeking shareholder approval, of which six failed to secure the requisite support. These included three resolutions relating to the appointment of independent directors, one concerning the reappointment of a managing director, one employee benefit scheme and one alteration of the Articles of Association.Story continues below this adMore importantly, six independent directors appointed during FY26 received less than 80% of shareholder votes in favour, although the statutory voting requirements were met. Such voting patterns should prompt boards to examine whether shareholders have genuine reservations about the independence, credentials or suitability of the nominees.The survey also exposed persistent weaknesses in board composition. Eight companies, including six public sector undertakings, continued to have non-compliant board compositions in all four financial years. One non-PSU company continued to have a non-compliant audit committee during the same period.The findings should serve as a wake-up call for corporate boards and market regulators. The effectiveness of governance cannot be measured by the number of meetings held, policies published or committees constituted. It must be judged by whether directors ask uncomfortable questions, managements are held accountable, complaints are investigated and shareholders receive honest answers.