IDBI Bank sale: EAS Sarma plea to President for review of CPSE divestment

SENSEX 74,026.39

 -702.88

NIFTY 22,937.00

 -209.15

CRUDEOIL 9,430.00

 -143.00

GOLD 148,389.00

+ 471.00

SILVER 212,145.00

+ 958.00

SENSEX 74,026.39

 -702.88

NIFTY 22,937.00

 -209.15

NIFTY 22,937.00

 -209.15

CRUDEOIL 9,430.00

 -143.00

CRUDEOIL 9,430.00

 -143.00

GOLD 148,389.00

+ 471.00

'; } document.getElementById("lgdv").innerHTML = htmlElements; } function numberformat(i) { return Number(parseFloat(i).toFixed(2)).toLocaleString('en', { minimumFractionDigits: 2 }) } async function gatherResponse(response) { const { headers } = response; const contentType = headers.get('content-type') || ''; if (contentType.includes('application/json')) { return await response.json() } return response.text(); } function getWidth() { if (Math.max(document.body.scrollWidth,document.documentElement.scrollWidth,document.body.offsetWidth,document.documentElement.offsetWidth,document.documentElement.clientWidth) > 991) { document.getElementById("mob").style.display = "none"; document.getElementById("lgdv").style.display = "block"; } else { document.getElementById("mob").style.display = "block"; document.getElementById("lgdv").style.display = "none"; } } getWidth(); THIS AD SUPPORTS OUR JOURNALISM. SUBSCRIBE FOR MINIMAL ADS.THIS AD SUPPORTS OUR JOURNALISM. SUBSCRIBE FOR MINIMAL ADS.

“Since it is the President who holds equity shares in CPSEs on behalf of the people, I seek your intervention in directing the government to review disinvestment,” Sarma said in the letter

By Vinson Kurian

Updated - October 19, 2026 at 12:51 PM.

Social cost of disinvestment of Central Public Sector Enterprises (CPSEs) far exceeds the perceived social benefits, according to EAS Sarma, former secretary to government. | Photo Credit: ADNAN ABIDI

Social cost of disinvestment of Central Public Sector Enterprises (CPSEs) far exceeds the perceived social benefits, according to EAS Sarma, former secretary to government. These disinvestments, particularly that of IDBI, needs to be reviewed, he said in a letter addressed to the President of India. 

“Since it is the President who holds equity shares in CPSEs on behalf of the people, I seek your intervention in directing the government to review CPSE disinvestment in general and IDBI disinvestment in particular,” Sarma noted in the letter. 

President’s holdings

There are 475 Central Public Sector Enterprises (CPSEs) with a total capital investment of ₹37,12,393 crore employing 7,81,552 persons, out of whom 4,16,118 belong to the SC/ST/OBC categories. Those CPSEs earn a net profit of ₹3,08,674 crore annually. On behalf of the people, the President of India holds ₹4,50,740 crore of equity holdings, which, in return, declare dividends annually of the order of ₹1,38,503 crore. 

“I feel that an independent inquiry should be ordered to examine the legality and prudence of disinvesting IDBI. The findings from that inquiry should be placed before Parliament for a discussion, not only on disinvestment of IDBI but also on the desirability of disinvestment of other CPSEs. Pending such an inquiry, the government should keep in abeyance the decision to hand over IDBI’s ownership and management control to Fairfax,” Sarma said quoting from a letter he wrote earlier to the Union Finance Minister. 

‘Fallacious’ justification

The government has presently undertaken an aggressive exercise to privatise several CPSEs through strategic disinvestment and monetise assets, which raises serious concerns of public interest, Sarma noted.

The justification that disinvestment helps raise additional fiscal resources is fallacious, as private firms that successfully bid for CPSE equity raise borrowings from the same pool of national savings that the state can readily access on far better terms, without having to lose ownership control. The excuse that privatisation leads to better management of an undertaking is equally questionable, as there are several CPSEs that have been functioning efficiently and have withstood global competition.

Directive Principles

Under Article 12 of the Constitution, CPSEs are instruments in the hands of the state for fulfilling the welfare role as well as the mandate enjoined upon it by the Directive Principles: “that the ownership and control of the material resources of the community are so distributed as best to subserve the common good, that the operation of the economic system does not result in the concentration of wealth and means of production to the common, and so on.” 

Moreover, CPSEs play a crucial role in promoting self-reliance in strategic areas of the economy, Sarma said. Private companies operate primarily with the objective of maximising their profits, and therefore, cannot be expected to function in alignment with the Directive Principles. The model of disinvestment presently adopted for disinvestment is inherently flawed, as the government has precluded other CPSEs from taking part in bidding, thereby severely restricting competition and proper price discovery. This has invariably resulted in what Sarma described as ‘underselling of valuable public assets.’

‘Public purpose’ flouted

In the long run, therefore, it is imprudent for the government to privatise CPSEs and/or monetise public assets to raise fiscal resources. Most of the lands in the occupation were originally acquired by concerned states under the erstwhile land acquisition legislation on the ground that those lands were needed for a “public purpose”, a term defined in that legislation as land needed for a company wholly owned by the government. 

It is therefore prima facie illegal for the government to alienate those lands to a private entity in the name of disinvestment, Sarma averred. In recent times, at least two cases of disinvestment, that of Central Electronics Ltd (CEL) and Pawan Hans, had to be aborted by the government at an advanced stage of approval, when there was public uproar against the possibility of their slipping into the hands of dubious bidders.

IDBI disinvestment

The latest case of CPSE disinvestment is that of IDBI, which raises similar concerns of public interest as referred above. Set up in 1964 as a development finance institution, IDBI has enlarged its presence in terms of its portfolio of activities and its outreach across the country. It has presently a network of 2,122 branches across the country, providing access to people in many remote areas. 

IDBI has on its rolls 19,108 employees, including 9,500 employees belonging to SC/ST/OBC categories. It has 6,911 women employees and 884 differently abled employees. The Centre and LIC hold 45.48 per cent and 49.24 per cent equity shares in IDBI. The Cabinet Committee on Economic Affairs (CEA) recently approved strategic sale of IDBI in favour of Fairfax, a Canadian company, for a consideration of Rs 52,878 crore, leaving a residual shareholding of 15 per cent with the Centre and 19 per cent with LIC.

Process lacks transparency

This leaves both the Centre and LIC as minority shareholders having little say in decisions on the future of IDBI. It was in May 2021 that the Centre took a decision on strategic disinvestment. Except for the cursory information provided in the Preliminary Information Memorandum (PIM) issued on October 7, 2022, there has been no transparency in the disinvestment process. Names of agencies that valued IDBI, methodology adopted for valuation, and inputs that went into valuation have not been disclosed either to Parliament or to the public.

By deliberately excluding other public sector undertakings from bidding for IDBI equity, in terms of Para 11.1(viii) of the PIM, the possibility of a banking behemoth like SBI introducing competition in bidding has been eliminated, leaving the field open to a few smaller private entities. It is ironic that competent, highly professional public sector undertakings were excluded but foreign entities were allowed to bid for IDBI.

Two foreign entities

The outcome was that the entire bidding process became restricted to two foreign entities, one from the UAE and another from Canada, suggesting that the government would rather entrust IDBI’s ownership and management control to a foreign agency than to its own domestic public sector banks, Sarma noted.

As part of the opaque process of valuation of IDBI and fixation of the reserve price, the initial bids were invited in the financial year 2025–26, with the reserve price fixed at ₹94.42 per share. When it fixed the reserve price at that level, the government’s team of experts would have examined all alternatives available, including “Relative Valuation by the Market Multiple Method” and “Asset Valuation Method”, as indicated in its statement.

Short of reserve price

Offers from the two foreign agencies, to which the bidding process became restricted, fell short of that reserve price. At that stage, considering that there was not enough competition and therefore the bid offers did not match the net worth of IDBI, the government ought to have thrown open the bidding process to a wider set of bidders, including other PSU banks. “Instead, it resorted to other valuation methods in a highly contrived manner to justify a reserve price that is 19.5 per cent lower than the reserve price fixed earlier,” Sarma pointed out.

The Canadian bidder offered Rs 81 per share, on the basis of which the government hastily finalised the aggregate sale of 60.72 per cent of IDBI’s equity to that bidder. It is not clear whether IDBI’s net worth has been properly assessed and whether the potential value of its land assets factored into the valuation.

LIC policy holders

LIC’s equity share in IDBI was funded by 262 million policyholders, Sarma said. In all fairness, the Centre and LIC should have taken them into confidence before approving the sale of equity. “To the best of my knowledge, they were not kept in the picture. As on March 31, 2026, public deposits in IDBI stood at ₹3,47,163 crore, as against total business of ₹6,00,789 crore. Many small investors have invested their hard-earned savings in IDBI, assuming that it has the government’s backing. Privatising IDBI would imply letting them down, without their consent.”

Welfare mandate

Had the government not been in a hurry to conclude the sale of IDBI, the latter would have maintained the increasing trend in its profitability and continued to play its role in promoting the welfare mandate envisaged in the Directive Principles. IDBI is a co-partner with the government in many flagship welfare schemes. 

The CCEA’s decision to hand over a majority equity share to the Canadian company not only closes the chapter on IDBI’s role as a development finance institution but also co-partner in the Centre’s flagship welfare schemes. Sarma went on to list legal Implications of disinvestment; breach of an assurance given to Parliament; and Fairfax’s conflict of interest vis-a-vis its ownership stakes in CSB Bank, in which it has acquired a majority stake. 

Published on October 19, 2026

THIS AD SUPPORTS OUR JOURNALISM. SUBSCRIBE FOR MINIMAL ADS. THIS AD SUPPORTS OUR JOURNALISM. SUBSCRIBE FOR MINIMAL ADS. THIS AD SUPPORTS OUR JOURNALISM. SUBSCRIBE FOR MINIMAL ADS. THIS AD SUPPORTS OUR JOURNALISM. SUBSCRIBE FOR MINIMAL ADS.Sign into Unlock benefits!

• Access 10 free stories per month
• Get notified by email for early preview to new features, discounts & offers