Born with a silver spoon !!!!!

The recent discussion around N. R. Narayana Murthy purchasing company shares worth nearly ₹240 crore in the name of his newborn grandson sparked widespread debate. Many observers contrasted this move with his earlier remarks encouraging the Indian workforce to work longer hours to stay competitive with countries like China. The irony, they argued, lies in the fact that while millions are urged to work harder, a child can enter the world already possessing immense wealth.

This situation raises an interesting question: how does the Indian legal and administrative system handle assets, records, and rights when they involve minors?

In India, a minor—typically anyone under the age of 18—is not considered legally competent to act independently. Instead, the law views children as individuals who require protection and supervision. As a result, any formal or financial activity involving a minor must be carried out through a parent or a legally appointed guardian.

This principle applies consistently across various domains. For example, when applying for a passport, opening a bank account, or even purchasing property in a minor’s name, the process is never truly “independent.” A guardian must initiate, authorize, and manage the transaction on behalf of the child. The minor may be the legal beneficiary or owner, but they are not the decision-maker.

Take banking as an example: accounts opened in a minor’s name are operated by a parent or guardian until the child reaches majority. Similarly, property purchased for a minor is held in their name, but all legal documentation and decisions are executed by the guardian. Even in something as straightforward as a passport application, parental consent and involvement are mandatory.

This framework reflects a broader legal philosophy: minors are protected participants, not autonomous actors. Their rights exist, but their ability to exercise those rights is mediated through responsible adults.

However, this protective approach comes with trade-offs. It introduces additional layers of documentation, oversight, and dependency. In a way, minors navigate the legal system like a child in a park who must hold a parent’s hand at all times—if they let go, their actions simply don’t carry legal weight.

The case of wealth transfers to minors—especially at such a large scale—highlights an interesting paradox. While the law ensures that children cannot misuse or mismanage assets, it places virtually no restriction on how much wealth can be assigned to them. The system focuses more on who controls the asset rather than how much is owned.

Ultimately, this reflects a fundamental design choice: the law prioritizes safeguarding the minor’s interests over regulating inequality or wealth concentration. Whether that balance is appropriate is a broader societal question—one that goes beyond legal frameworks and into the realm of ethics and public policy.