The Life Insurance Corporation of India Ltd (LIC) has, for more than three years, taken an overwhelmingly supportive stance toward shareholder resolutions moved by Reliance Industries Ltd (RIL) and companies within the Adani Group — a pattern that stands in contrast to its voting behaviour at several other major firms. This finding emerges from a detailed investigation by Mint, which examined nearly 9,000 voting decisions made by the state-run insurer since April 1, 2022.

Mint’s analysis shows that during this period, while LIC voted against or abstained from comparable proposals at a range of large corporations — including some belonging to other major business conglomerates — it “consistently approved or never opposed” resolutions linked to the two business houses led by Mukesh Ambani and Gautam Adani.

The disparity, experts told the publication, raises serious questions about the insurer’s decision-making process and “whether it has different voting standards for businesses controlled by the country’s wealthiest tycoons versus other companies”.
A series of examples illustrates this divergence. In August 2023, LIC backed the reappointment of Mukesh Ambani as managing director of RIL.

Yet in March 2025, when TVS Motor Company proposed reappointing Venu Srinivasan as chairman emeritus and managing director, LIC abstained — offering no explanation beyond saying the move was “as per our internal guidelines”, Mint reported.

A similar inconsistency was visible in LIC’s handling of independent director appointments. In June 2024, the insurer supported RIL’s move to appoint lawyer Haigreve Khaitan to its board. But barely two months later, LIC abstained from voting on the reappointment of Rajeev Gupta as an independent director at Indian Energy Exchange Ltd, citing his “excessive time commitments”. Gupta sits on nine company boards. By that yardstick, the report pointed out, LIC should also have considered Khaitan — who serves on eight boards — overextended. Yet during the same week, it approved Gupta’s appointment to the Pidilite Industries board.

The pattern extended to Adani Group companies as well. In June last year, Adani Enterprises sought shareholder approval to reappoint Rajesh Adani and Pranav Adani to senior executive roles and determine their remuneration.

LIC abstained from voting, saying the proposals were “compliant with law but no absolute cap on variable pay”. But in a comparable situation involving Coromandel International Ltd of the Murugappa Group, the insurer voted against the reappointment and remuneration of Arunachalam Vellayan and Narayanan Vellayan, flagging “governance concern” and “no absolute cap on variable pay”.

Experts quoted by Mint noted that while abstaining does not block a resolution, it also avoids endorsing it outright. “When a large institutional shareholder like LIC abstains from voting on a resolution, it sends a message to the company management that they are not happy with the proposal without derailing it,” said Shriram Subramanian, managing director of proxy advisory firm InGovern and a corporate governance specialist.

Another notable break from LIC’s historical voting practice emerged when Adani Enterprises sought approval for its FY25 audited standalone and consolidated financial statements. LIC voted in favour despite the presence of a qualified auditor opinion — a type of proposal it had consistently refrained from approving earlier, Mint observed. A qualified opinion signals that while the financials are broadly presented fairly, certain issues remain.

Overall, LIC voted in favour of more than 92% of the approximately 9,000 resolutions it considered since April 2022, abstained from around 6% and rejected under 2%. At Adani Group firms, LIC approved 351 out of 368 resolutions and abstained on the rest. It did not reject a single proposal. Similarly, as the largest public shareholder in RIL and Jio Financial Services, LIC greenlit all 63 shareholder resolutions put forward by the two companies over 14 consecutive quarters — even when it voted differently on similar resolutions at other firms.

Corporate governance experts told Mint that LIC’s inconsistent voting poses broader concerns. Given its scale, public mandate and massive assets under management — Rs 357.23 trillion ($645 billion) as of September — the insurer’s actions can influence broader market governance standards. If LIC takes one position in the case of a leading conglomerate, experts said, it ought to apply the same principles to smaller or unrelated companies.

Mint also reported that some of these voting actions appear misaligned with LIC’s own stewardship code, which says it “aims to promote the long-term success of investee companies in such a way that the ultimate providers of capital also prosper”. In at least one instance, the insurer’s decisions ran counter to the governance discipline outlined in its formal voting policy.

Mint said it sought responses from LIC, RIL and the Adani Group ahead of publication but received none.