Data from the Ministry of Corporate Affairs shows that many publicly listed companies did not comply with the provision of appointing a woman director to their boards. Across the world, women are underrepresented in the highest positions of leadership in corporate world despite being a significant proportion of the corporate talent pool in the middle and lower rungs. The corporate world generally maintains that there is no systemic exclusion of women and that it is a gender-blind meritocracy with a pipeline problem (a situation where there are insufficient number of candidates in organisations to promote to higher positions). However empirical studies and testimonies shared by women in corporate world reveal that implicit bias, social favoritism, historical understandings of gender roles, stereotypes of gender, status group politics and unintended, subtle discriminatory policies impede the professional advancement of women in the highest positions of leadership. Why Gender Diversity? Since the issue of gender diversity in corporate world became mainstream, governments and consultancy groups have urged companies to diversify their boards. Gender diversification has been shown to increase profits, improve strategic organization, boost goodwill, reduce group think and increase innovation and creativity by exposing company boards to multiple worldviews and perspectives. The diversity in input thus created leads companies to produce diverse products that cater to a wider consumer base and thereby increase market share. However, an important aspect of gender diversification is missed in mainstream discussion. Gender diversification cannot be conflated with merely appointing women to company boards. Gender diversification includes the responsibility of dismantling unintended, subtle discriminatory practices and creating an environment for equal opportunity, participation and collaboration. Only then does gender diversification truly fulfil its purpose, enable companies to capture maximum benefits and utilize the capabilities of the population of States. What does the law say? In India, the number of women appointed to company boards remains abysmal. The 2016 World Economic Forum Global Gender Gap report indicates that the female-to-male ratio of boards of publicly traded companies is 0.11. To encourage gender diversification in the corporate sector in India, Section 149 of the Companies Act, 2013 mandates that every Listed Company and every other public company either having a paid up share capital of at least Rs 100 crores or having a turnover of at least Rs 300 crores must appoint at least one woman director. Companies incorporated under the Act are required to comply with the provision within six months of their incorporation whereas companies incorporated under Companies Act, 1956 were given a period of one year to comply with the provisions. The Act also provides for the imposition of fines when companies do not comply. Additionally, Clause 49 of the Listing Agreement was amended by SEBI to ensure that the board of directors of listed companies had at least one-woman director. What do the numbers say? While these legal reforms are an acknowledgement of the gender gap and manifest an intention to build gender parity and inclusiveness in corporate world, we must be sceptic of their efforts in ensuring gender diversification. Though Section 149 of the Companies Act, 2013 imposes a minimum mandatory quota on companies, the minimum quota is itself so small that it appears merely tokenistic. There is reasonable doubt over the difference one female director can make as compared with having at least three or more women directors on board. The Indian minimum mandatory quota of one female director also does not match up to global standards. (For instance, Norway, Finland, France and Spain require 40% whereas Belgium, Kenya and Italy require 33% women on boards.) At the least, the minimum mandatory quota must reflect the proportion of women working in the country’s corporate world. The reforms also have a superficial understanding of gender diversification, as they primarily suggest that gender diversity is merely about appointing women to company boards and do not extend thought on creating equal opportunities to work and advance in careers. To that extent, the legal provisions allow companies to indulge in diversity doublespeak. The instrumentalist approach that companies have taken in complying with the provisions also does not indicate gender diversification in company boards.