
Atanu Chakraborty on Saturday, June 27, 2026, termed the review as just a “compliance exercise,” and stated that he repeatedly asked the board for the scope of the legal review, but wasn’t provided any clarity.HDFC Bank will now have to focus on the looming succession issues, starting with the appointment of a new part-time chairman and the potential re-appointment of MD and CEO Sashidhar Jagdishan, whose term ends in October, after an independent legal review into the concerns flagged in the resignation letter of former chairman Atanu Chakraborty found no evidence to substantiate his claims, experts said.
Chakraborty, a former bureaucrat, resigned as the part-time chairman of the country’s second largest lender on March 18, 2026. His resignation letter, which stated that “certain happenings and practices” within the bank observed over two years, were “not in congruence” with his personal values and ethics, sent shockwaves and raised several corporate governance-related questions on HDFC Bank.
The lender, subsequently announced an independent review by external law firms to evaluate if any concern was evident as raised in the statement made by Chakraborty in his resignation letter, and if Chakraborty recorded any dissent, and whether it was addressed.
Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, P.C. and Wadia Ghandy & Co. conducted the legal review over a three-month period and involved the review of thousands of documents and interviews of the independent directors and several members of senior management.
MUST READ: HDFC Bank, SBI, ICICI Bank shares: MOFSL picks private over PSU banks as credit growth nears decadal high
The review concluded that Chakraborty’s statement and its implications were not substantiated by the record and witness interviews.
“No contemporaneous support for Chakraborty’s statement was found in the board or
board committee minutes or materials reviewed, or in contemporaneous communications about the review and approval of the minutes of meetings he attended,” the review noted.
Importantly, it noted that the bank and the external law firms repeatedly requested that Chakraborty speak as part of the legal review, but ultimately the interview never happened, something that has baffled corporate governance and market experts.\