\n<\/p>\n
On 26 November 2016, the Ministry of Corporate Affairs came out with its first list of directors disqualified under Section 164(2)(a)<\/a>. The Registrar of Companies, Tamil N\u0101du, Coimbatore, issued a list with a total of 2042 names with disqualification from 1 November 2017 till 31 October 2022.<\/p>\n From September 2017 onwards, various offices of the Registrar of Companies issued different lists of disqualified directors for period 1 November 2014 to 31 October 2019, 1 November 2015 to 31 October 2020 and 1 November 2016 to 31 October 2021, 1 November 2017 to 31 October 2022. All sets of these lists of directors so disqualified may be found here<\/a>.<\/p>\n Immediately after that, few directors so disqualified approached High Courts under writ jurisdiction. High Court found disqualifications from 1 November 2014 to 31 October 2019 and from 1 November 2015 to 31 October 2020 invalid as the provision under Section 164(2)(a), introduced in the year 2014, and it has prospective effect only.<\/p>\n MCA deactivated the DIN of directors, so disqualified to implement their disqualification. These DIN so deactivated could not be used for any filing purpose on MCA for the period of disqualification.<\/p>\n There is a lengthy debate on the manner of implementation of this law. I was surprised with the way of quick acceptance of disqualification and wrote this long post here<\/a>. But, these people know how to bow and run the show.<\/p>\n So, the first effective batch of persons disqualified to be a director completed their disqualification period on 31 October 2021. Now, our mighty directors once again keep mum. There is no automatic removal of disqualification on the practical side. The Government, while deactivating the DIN, forgot to place the automatic activation command in the system. Due to technological and bureaucratic excuses, MCA activated deactivated DIN after delays of 20 more days.<\/p>\n Those who support a violation of the human rights of others do not fight for their own human and legal rights (unless huge money involved). This incident is another fine example.<\/p>\n Now, these directors may again enjoy the tag of director on their business cards. However, they need to check their KYC Compliance status. Directors are clients of MCA. Therefore, MCA needs to know who they are. For this, they should check whether they have complied with the annual KYC requirement. (Un)fortunately, due to ignorance of the law, alienation, or professional advice, most people did not file their KYC documents with MCA. Anyway, such KYC non-compliance secure you from unwanted directorship in a company by fraud on you.<\/p>\n