My contribution to a board
I could help a board examine the commitments hidden inside a service proposition. A programme may have enough total capacity and still be unstaffed at its busiest hour. A recording can require work beyond the live assignment. A proposed purchase may contain relationships whose continuity has not been explained. These are matters of strategy, resources and accountability when material to the enterprise. They do not require directors to allocate every practitioner or approve each caption. The contribution I would bring is a disciplined question about what management has promised and the operating basis on which it expects to fulfil that promise.
My own 2019 approval belongs in that conversation. I accepted an aggregate-hours account before examining fourteen simultaneous streams against ten qualified teams. The ₹48 lakh response was a cost the business incurred because my decision had missed the shape of the work. That experience helps me recognise how an apparently sound summary can leave the relevant constraint outside the discussion. It does not make me immune to repeating the mistake. A useful board would challenge my account as readily as I challenge management's, and expect evidence that distinguishes the proposed improvement from a result already demonstrated.
Judgement in practice
01An acquisition that required a customer-transition account
The proposed ₹4.6 crore purchase depended on nine principal customer relationships. Four relied heavily on the founder and five lacked settled transition arrangements. I would ask directors to examine the business expected after the change, including people, resources and unresolved assumptions. The ₹40 lakh diligence expense remained incurred when we declined the proposal. That decision was not proof that the practice lacked value or that building an alternative would be easy. Oversight should preserve those distinctions so a board can assess a real choice rather than a retrospective success story.
02A broad service claim with different communication needs inside it
The twenty-four-brief review separated fifteen same-language caption requests from nine translation-only requests. I would ask how management knows which needs its actual offer meets, who has participated in assessing the experience and what remains outside the scope. The ₹43 lakh paid-participation and specialist programme supported a more specific proposition. It did not certify every programme or establish universal access. The board's role is to challenge a material claim and its evidence while retaining qualified professional and user-informed assessment of the actual service.
My first year on a board
I would use the first period to understand where the company's service commitments are made and how they reach the board. A sales proposal, an operating plan and a financial report can describe the same business in very different terms. I would want to see how those accounts connect, including the conditions that remain unresolved when management asks for approval. The purpose would be to learn this enterprise rather than assume that Qeravli's booking process or language-service experience is a ready-made operating model for it. Similar terminology can conceal a different allocation of responsibilities.
With the chair's agreement, I would follow a small number of material decisions through their subsequent review. Did the company retain the original assumptions? Were additional costs visible? Did a change of definition make a result look better than the underlying service experience? I would seek feedback on whether my questions help collective judgement or pull the board unnecessarily into management detail. The first year should establish a useful contribution and reveal gaps in my own understanding. It should not become a programme of executive interventions undertaken simply because I recognise a familiar service problem.
Conflicts and their management
My current role creates relationships with clients, specialist practitioners, technology providers, advisers and investors. An outside company may share those connections or compete for the same capabilities without appearing to be a direct competitor. I would disclose the relevant interests, including the small beneficial holding in the employee vehicle, and support the appropriate assessment. Some situations may require restricted participation; others may make an appointment unsuitable. I would not treat disclosure as a universal remedy or assume that a relationship ceases to matter because it is modest in financial value.
Time needs the same specificity. Eighteen days is a provisional outside-work estimate, including preparation, induction and travel, not just scheduled meetings. Exceptional demands, employer consent and the duties of my existing executive directorship must be considered before accepting a role. A board should know if its expected contribution exceeds that capacity. I would prefer to decline an unsuitable commitment than rely on the optimistic idea that a service executive can always fit another responsibility between programmes. The appointment discussion should surface those constraints before availability is presented as settled.
My independence statement
I serve as CEO and an executive director of Qeravli, with a beneficial interest of 0.06 percentage points inside the employee vehicle's 24% holding. I make no claim of independence from that employer. Any proposed outside appointment needs a company-specific review of the relevant Companies Act criteria, including section 149(6), and applicable SEBI LODR provisions. Professional, financial and personal relationships need disclosure and assessment; recusal alone should not be assumed sufficient. Committee composition, eligibility and applicable directorship limits must be examined for the actual role. My current board exposure is evidence of experience, not an automatic conclusion about independent status elsewhere.
Committee contribution
Chair and member readiness| Capacity | Committees |
|---|
| Ready to join | Service strategy and operating-risk discussion, subject to the actual committee remit and nomination assessment · Customer and professional-capability oversight where the company's structure supports that contribution |
|---|
Capacity and preferences
- Time available
- 18 days per year
- Current directorships
- 1
- Sectors
- Professional communications services · Regional language and access-service enterprises · Specialist businesses with time-dependent customer commitments
- Company type
- An enterprise whose service proposition depends on scarce professional capabilities
- Company stage
- A business making growth commitments that need a clearer operating and transition account
The seat I am pursuing
I would consider a carefully assessed first outside role in a professional-service enterprise whose growth depends on scarce capabilities, customer continuity or the reliability of time-specific promises. My executive board experience could make those questions useful to collective oversight. It does not establish immediate readiness to chair an audit, nomination or other statutory committee. The actual board must assess the contribution against its composition needs, applicable requirements and the responsibilities of the proposed seat. Qualified financial, legal, technical and professional owners remain essential to that judgement.
The preparation record is deliberately incomplete: IICA databank registration dates to March 2026, while proficiency-assessment preparation is still unfinished and no exemption is claimed. I would resolve the relevant requirements and examine independence, relationships and time before appointment. I want a nomination reader to see both the experience and its limits, including the current executive role and the mistake retained in these cases. A title should not be used to bridge a gap that preparation, evidence or the company's own assessment still needs to address. The right opportunity would need the questions I can contribute and a realistic basis for the responsibilities I would accept.
Governance learning and readiness
IICA Independent Directors’ Databank: Registered
This fictional record states IICA Independent Directors' Databank registration in March 2026. Proficiency-assessment preparation remains incomplete; no exemption or completed assessment is claimed. Applicable requirements must be checked and fulfilled for a real appointment.
- I am extending my preparation beyond the executive service account into collective oversight and financial challenge.
- I distinguish actual board service from the separate eligibility and independence review an outside appointment needs.
- I retain unfinished proficiency-assessment preparation in the record rather than imply that registration completes it.
Board and committee exposure
Served as a director
Qeravli Language Networks
Executive directorship; enterprise service and capital account
July 2020–present
One executive board seat alongside the CEO role, reporting through a separate chair. No independent status claimed in this company.
Presented to the Board or a committee
Qeravli Language Networks
Programme-capacity correction
2019
Presented the fourteen-stream planning mistake and ₹48 lakh correction as service and commercial director before the statutory appointment.