Vishesh Chandiok, CEO of Grant Thornton Bharat LLP, notes that the Audit landscape of India has the four large companies or small businesses. “Who will defend the Indian capital? Anyone must also support Indian capital and have a voice on a standard framework on Indian sight,” he said in a business interview today. He says that reforms are required on multidisciplinary partnerships, the ability to bring capital and create a demand and support for work in order to extend accounting and interior audit firms. Edited extracts:
> The government has worked on scaling Indian accounting firms. What is the way to follow?
India is the economy that knows the fastest growth, and thought is that it should have its own institutions. China understood it and started doing something in the audit world 15 years ago. They identified the 10 largest Chinese companies and gave them the audit of public enterprises as well as all the registration work for Chinese companies in Hong Kong as well as the 4 large of these Chinese companies are even larger than the Big Four today.
In India, there is no equivalent to that. We have either the four large companies or small businesses. Who will defend the Indian capital? Someone must also support Indian capital and have a voice on a standard framework on Indian sight. In India, there must be a clarity on which is the final regulatory authority, specific to auditors of public interest entities. There must also be regulatory reforms on three provisions: multidisciplinary partnerships, which will allow audit firms to recruit any other professional as a partner, for example cybersecurity or a SAP expert.
It has been legislated into the law on societies but has not yet been implemented effectively. The second problem is the ability to bring in capital, which is necessary to invest in talents, technology and everything else. Big Four has been doing it for years, but Indian companies can only do a lot. Why can’t they use investment capital or venture capital? Finally, how do we create demand and support for their work. For example, the spouse can be opened so that the best companies can start. We must do it gradually and wise by the phase, and perhaps only for a very short period of 5 or 10 years.
In the banking sector, the spouse has been implemented, but several Indian companies simply do not have the capacity. They end up playing a shadow role. Many companies want the four large ones to sign on their balance sheets because of their foreign investors and the perception of capacity, capacity and credibility.
> Many Indian companies say they have the capacity and the ability to work for large companies, but the four large ones do not agree. Your socket:
I think the feeling is mutual! Frankly, everyone must think about the success and activation of the profession of the whole ecosystem, compared to a single category. If what I have described in the previous answer happens, India will soon have an Indian Big 10, some of which will love GTBHARAT will eventually become an Indian BIG4 in 10 years.
You have also talked about the issue of capital and MDP, but one of the concerns that regulators generally highlight is that you know that there is a certain independence and that they do not want money coming on somewhere …
It is a very valid concern – and frankly, which deserves a nuanced response, not a general restriction. Independence is essential to the credibility of our profession, and any reform must preserve this above all. But the current approach all or nothing – where even a minority participation of a non -CA is prohibited – has gone too far in the other direction.
All over the world, including markets such as the United Kingdom, the United States and Canada, companies operate as multidisciplinary partnerships, often admits non-accounting professionals such as technology experts, legal advisers or strategic investors. The main safeguard is that professional control – through majority voting rights – must always remain with skilled cases. India can and must adopt the same model. We already apply such logic in highly regulated sectors such as bank and insurance, where Indian CEOs or board controls are mandated.
The structured participation of external investors will allow Indian companies to raise capital, attract talent and invest in global capacities. Independence does not come from the ban on capital. This comes from who controls decisions on the quality of the audit and the way regulators apply responsibility. Do you think that an investor wants to ruin their money by compromising quality or promoting shortcuts? Would there be someone who would say that PE companies generally do not start by asking for the highest governance standards when they invest?
> What type of calendar do you think necessary to advance this and increase Indian companies?
The next six months are absolutely essential. April 1, 2027 marked the second main series of compulsory rotations from the audit firm, and credible companies already provide for their listener’s selections. More than 50% of the high -end market should run businesses – and once this window ends, the next opportunity will not arise for another decade.
If India wants to see its companies emerge as serious suitors in this cycle, political and regulatory reforms must be locked by January 1, 2026. This gives companies a realistic track to assess and appoint Indian companies. It is not only a question of grasping a moment – it is a question of avoiding a 10 -year miss.
> What type of capacity building do Indian companies need to evolve?
They must invest in talents in accordance with the remuneration and benefits of the market, to provide guidelines on denunciation and posh, and invest in skills, learning, technology and cybersecurity. Most of these large Indian companies already have links with global networking companies. So, they just need to integrate more, learn from them and adopt some of their methodologies, software and business practices, including talent management and marketing strategies, and the rest will follow.
