EXCLUSIVE: “No scope of legal review given to me, so I did not speak to law firms,” says HDFC Bank former chairman Atanu Chakraborty

HDFC Bank’s former part-time chairman Atanu Chakraborty has questioned the need for an independent legal review even as the bank-appointed law firms have given a clean chit stating that “Mr. Chakraborty’s statement and its implications were not substantiated.”

Chakraborty, in an exclusive interview with Fortune India, however, said: “I specifically asked the legal firms for the scope and legal basis for such a review. They did not provide me the details, which is why I did not speak to them.”

The bank’s former part-time chairman’s reaction was with regard to the statement mentioning that the bank and external law firms “repeatedly requested” Chakraborty to speak to them as part of the legal review but the interview, ultimately, “did not occur”.

The legal review, carried out by Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati and Wadia Ghandy, stated that “contemporaneous evidence reviewed was inconsistent” with Chakraborty’s statements—that “happenings and practices” were not in congruence with his “personal values and ethics”—as mentioned in his March 18 resignation letter to the bank’s board.

The legal review found no evidence after reviewing meeting minutes and agenda papers, conducting interviews, and reviewing additional documents and information, in the two years preceding Chakraborty’s resignation.

Chakraborty told Fortune India: “I am glad that the legal compliance exercise found no governance issues of concern… My resignation was more for the bank’s board and the highest echelons within the bank to introspect upon practices taking place.”

Witness interviews did not support Chakraborty’s statements

The bank’s statement mentions that the law firms interacted individually with each of the independent directors and senior management personnel, including the chairpersons of relevant committees and the managing director and CEO, Sashidhar Jagdishan.

The law firms found that the minutes of the meetings Chakraborty attended were a product of a comprehensive drafting, review and approval process that afforded him an opportunity to record any “happenings and practices” that were not in congruence with his personal values and ethics. The findings of the report claim that witness interviews did not support or substantiate the statements made by Chakraborty.

It’s not clear whether the bank has shared the “comprehensive” legal review report either with the Reserve Bank of India, or the Securities and Exchange Board of India.

Since Chakraborty’s premature exit, the HDFC Bank stock has fallen 5.57% and nearly 20% year-to-date.

Chakraborty, in earlier media interactions, had raised concerns over the mis-selling of Credit Suisse’s AT1 bonds by the bank’s Dubai branch. The legal review, however, mentions that “although Mr. Chakraborty referred to the Dubai matter in post-resignation public statements, no contemporaneous evidence was identified reflecting that he raised any concerns about his personal values and ethics, or that he disagreed with any decisions made by the board or relevant board committees, in connection with the Dubai matter (or any other matters that the board and those committees addressed).”

Chakraborty told Fortune India: “I have nothing more to add… I have moved on. The board needs to introspect,” he told Fortune India.

"Focus back on business"

While the bank did not share comments on the report with Fortune India, a high-level source in the bank said the focus will shift back to business. “Not that it was not there earlier, but the focus on business will be much more intense now,” said the source.

Meanwhile, the bank is yet to decide on the selection of a new chairman after interim part-time chairman Keki Mistry steps down on September 18, 2026, or until the appointment of a permanent successor, whichever is earlier.

“No names have yet been shortlisted yet,” the source said. In fact, Jagdishan’s second term, too, will end on October 26, 2026.