Physical Address
304 North Cardinal St.
Dorchester Center, MA 02124
Vishesh Chandiok, CEO of Grant Thornton Bharat LLP, notes that India’s auditing landscape either has the Big Four or smaller firms. “Who will stand up for Indian capital? Somebody needs to support Indian capital also and have a voice on standard setting on the Indian view,” he underlined in an interview to Business Today. He says reforms are needed on multidisciplinary partnerships, ability to bring in capital and to create demand and support for work in order to scale up domestic accounting and auditing firms. Edited Excerpts:
> The government has been working on scaling up homegrown Indian accounting firms. What is the way forward?
India is the fastest-growing economy, and the thinking is that it should have its own institutions. China understood that and started doing something in the audit world 15 years ago. They identified the 10 biggest Chinese firms and gave them the audit of state-owned enterprises as well as all the listing work of Chinese firms in Hong Kong along with the Big 4 Some of these Chinese firms are even bigger than the Big Four today.
In India, there is no equivalent to this. We either have the Big Four or smaller firms. Who will stand up for Indian capital? Somebody needs to support Indian capital also and have a voice on standard setting on the Indian view. In India, there needs to be clarity on who is the final regulatory authority, specific for auditors of public interest entities. There also needs to be regulatory reforms on three provisions: multidisciplinary partnerships, which will enable audit firms to bring on board any other professional as a partner, say a cybersecurity or a SAP expert.
It has been legislated in the Companies Act but has not been implemented effectively as yet. The second issue is the ability to bring in capital, which is needed to invest in talent, technology and everything else. The Big Four have had this for years but Indian firms can only do so much. Why can’t they tap into private equity or venture capital? Lastly, how do we create demand and support for their work. For instance, joint audit can be opened for the top 100 companies to start with. We need to do this in a gradual and phase wise way, and perhaps only for a very short period of 5 or 10 years.
In the banking sector, joint audit has come into place, but several Indian firms just don’t have the capacity. They end up playing a shadow role. Lot of companies want the Big Four to sign on their balance sheets due to their foreign investors, and the perception of capacity, capability and credibility.
> A lot of Indian firms say they have the capacity and capability to work for large companies but the Big Four do not agree. Your take:
I think the feeling is mutual! Frankly, everyone needs to think of the profession’s success and enablement of the entire ecosystem, versus only one category. If what I have described in the previous response happens, India will have an Indian Big 10 soon, some of whom will like GTBharat end up becoming Indian global Big4 in 10 years’ time.
You also spoke on the issue of capital and MDPs, but one of the concerns that regulators usually highlight is you know that they want there to be some amount of independence and they don’t want money coming in from somewhere…
That’s a very valid concern—and frankly, one that deserves a nuanced response, not a blanket restriction. Independence is critical to the credibility of our profession, and any reform must preserve that above all else. But the current all-or-nothing approach—where even a minority equity stake from a non-CA is disallowed—has gone too far in the other direction.
Across the world, including in markets like the UK, US, and Canada, firms operate as multidisciplinary partnerships, often admitting non-accountant professionals like tech experts, legal advisors, or strategic investors. The key safeguard is that professional control—through majority voting rights—must always remain with qualified CAs. India can and should adopt the same model. We already apply such logic in highly regulated sectors like banking and insurance, where Indian CEOs or board controls are mandated.
Structured participation from external investors will enable Indian firms to raise capital, attract talent, and invest in global capability. Independence doesn’t come from banning capital. It comes from who controls the decisions on audit quality and how regulators enforce accountability. Do you think any investor wants to ruin their money by compromising quality or promoting shortcuts? Would there be anyone who would say that PE firms generally don’t start by asking for the highest standards of Governance when they invest?
> What kind of timeline do you think is needed to take this forward and scale up Indian firms?
The next six months are absolutely critical. April 1, 2027 marks the second major round of mandatory audit firm rotation, and credible companies are already planning their auditor selections. More than 50% of the top-end market is expected to rotate firms—and once that window closes, the next opportunity won’t arise for another decade.
If India wants to see its firms emerge as serious contenders in this cycle, policy and regulatory reforms must be locked in by January 1, 2026. That gives companies a realistic runway to evaluate and appoint Indian firms. This isn’t just about seizing a moment—it’s about avoiding a 10-year miss.
> What kind of capacity building do Indian firms need to scale up?
They need to invest in talent in line with market pay and benefits, provide guidelines on whistleblowing and POSH, and invest in skilling, learning, technology and cybersecurity. Most of these top Indian firms already have tie-ups with global network firms. So, they just need to integrate more, learn from them, and adopt some of their methodologies, software, and business practices, including talent management and ‘go-to-market’ strategies, and the rest will follow.
