India’s audit exposes weaknesses in its EV subsidy programme, while global fragrance giants face probes over suspected price collusion, highlighting regulatory gaps in managing large public and private sector schemes.
India’s state auditor has laid bare deep flaws in the government’s flagship electric vehicle subsidy programme, while antitrust authorities have opened a separate probe into global fragrance makers over suspected price collusion. Together, the two cases point to a wider pattern in India’s regulatory landscape: large public schemes and powerful private markets can both drift badly when oversight is weak.
The Comptroller and Auditor General’s review of the Faster Adoption and Manufacturing of Hybrid and Electric Vehicles, or FAME, scheme found that the government repeatedly misjudged how subsidies would be used, shifted money late in the programme and failed to keep a reliable grip on claims. The audit said manufacturers breached localisation rules, some received incentives despite not meeting eligibility conditions, and the digital system meant to track payments produced conflicting records. It also found that public charging plans moved far more slowly than promised, leaving much of the network either incomplete or unusable.
The scale of the EV push helps explain why the failures matter. India’s electric vehicle share of total registrations rose from 0.08% in 2015 to 6.82% in 2023-24, according to the report, and FAME was meant to accelerate that shift by lowering prices, supporting charging infrastructure and nudging manufacturers towards local production. But the auditor concluded that the original assumptions behind the scheme were often unrealistic. In one case, the government had to reallocate funding sharply after two-wheelers exhausted their share of the incentive budget far faster than cars and three-wheelers. In another, the portal used to process claims recorded inconsistent, and sometimes plainly impossible, data.
On the corporate side, India’s Competition Commission is investigating whether Givaudan, DSM-Firmenich and International Flavours & Fragrances coordinated prices in the fragrance business. Reports in Business Standard, the Economic Times and other outlets say the case dates to 2024 and comes alongside a separate inquiry into alleged agreements not to poach one another’s staff. The companies have said they are co-operating with regulators in global anti-cartel investigations, but no finding of wrongdoing has been made.
The fragrance industry may seem obscure, but it sits inside everyday products from shampoo to detergent and cosmetics. That gives its suppliers unusual leverage: the scent in a finished product is often a tiny part of its cost, yet changing it can require fresh testing, regulatory checks and consumer trials. Industry concentration, high technical barriers and trade secrets make it hard for new entrants to break in, which is one reason regulators are taking the allegations seriously. Still, similar pricing across rivals does not on its own prove collusion; input costs, freight and energy prices can move together too.
Seen together, the two probes show the same underlying problem from different angles: when complex systems are left to run without strong verification, weak controls can distort outcomes for years before anyone notices. In the EV scheme, that meant subsidies, chargers and manufacturing incentives that did not always land where they should have. In fragrances, it means regulators are now testing whether a concentrated market has crossed the line from tough competition into co-ordinated behaviour.
Disclaimer: This article is intended to inform and educate, not to recommend or endorse any financial product, investment or strategy. Please consider your own financial circumstances and seek professional advice where appropriate before making financial decisions.
