Dear Editor,
I write as a concerned shareholder and market participant following recent disclosures that a resolution is being advanced to impose a cap on shareholding and voting rights at the upcoming Banks DIH shareholders meeting.
While such measures are often framed as promoting “shareholder democracy,” the practical effect is far less benign. Artificial caps on ownership and voting power restrict free market participation, suppress liquidity and undermine the natural price discovery that protects minority shareholders. In small and developing capital markets such as ours, liquidity is not a luxury—it is essential.
Good corporate governance is rooted in transparency, accountability and strong oversight mechanisms. It is not achieved by curtailing fundamental shareholder rights or by limiting the ability of investors to acquire influence through lawful means. If governance weaknesses exist, they should be addressed openly through board effectiveness, disclosure, and regulatory compliance not through structural barriers that entrench existing power.
Of particular concern is the precedent this sets. Once voting rights can be invalidated beyond an arbitrary threshold, the principle of proportional ownership is weakened. This risks discouraging institutional investment, reducing confidence in the market and ultimately harming long-term shareholder value.
Shareholders should ask a simple question: If the company is confident in its governance, strategy and performance, why is it necessary to restrict who can invest and to what extent? The upcoming Shareholder meeting is an important moment for shareholders to engage actively, ask hard questions and carefully consider whether this proposal serves the interests of all shareholders or only a select few.