The 2013 Amendment to the Companies Act, 2013 brought with it a lot of landmark changes to the legislation. However, the most appreciated yet the most criticized amendment remains the change made to Section 149 of the Act which now lays down for a mandatory appointment of a woman director to the board of directors for certain companies. This was done to ensure the dual objectives of better governance in corporate law and social empowerment of woman, to help with the barriers of immovability in the hierarchy due to lack of social awareness. The mandate set by this amendment has however “ compelled ” certain companies with heavy internal issues and other such capable companies to abrogate them and atory provisions of the law and appoint someone from their own kit handkin or relations to the board as a woman director so as to continue to hold a firm grip on the functioning of the company while there still sits some lady acting as a nominal head, ensuring “ compliance ” with the law .There arises a need therefore to check whether the legislation in itself is foolproof to meet with the objectives set forth by the law and if not then what can be done otherwise in order to ensure the same. The question also arises as to whether appointment of an ‘independent woman director’ instead of a “woman director” would resolve the challenging issue cropping up with the amendment
