Jump to content

Talk:Azim Premji

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled

[edit]

If he owns 86% of Wipro, is not the rest 16% and not 26%?--Pgreenfinch 17:55, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Neither it would be 14#


Is he Nizari Ismaili or is he Bohra? 71.105.106.105 00:11, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think there is no need to know about his faith, its the deeds which matters. Hope everyone will consider Mr.Azim Premji a righteous individual than a mediocre believer. I really wish to see people like him who are human & helps promote humanity.

I think there is no need to know about his faith, its the deeds which matters. Hope everyone will consider Mr.Azim Premji a righteous individual than a mediocre believer. I really wish to see people like him who are human & helps promote humanity. ~ abdulazeemsyed@gmail.com

Looks like he is Bohra. Please see: http://www.malumaat.com/archives/akhbar1428/bangalore/index3.html

69.165.248.173 (talk) 06:10, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wherefore "Er."?

[edit]

In many places in the article, Mr. Premji was listed as "Er.Azim" and as "Er. Azim". Apart from this inconsistent spacing, the use of "Er." is not supported by the Wipro site, the Times of India page, Forbes, or the name his own foundation. I hesitated to eliminate the "Er."s only because they're not especially new, but have been bold. I am open to correction. Czrisher (talk) 23:03, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Azim Premji. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:25, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Azim Premji. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:10, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lohana ancestry

[edit]

Khojas were Lohanas who converted to Islam[1]. Spbone (talk) 16:33, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://www.lcnd.org.uk/about/lohana-history/
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Azim Premji. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:45, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

== Spam e-mail (probably scam) in his name ==Sultec (talk) 13:32, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I just received a spam e-mail "in his name" referring (in first person) to his philanthropy and mentioning the intention to donate USD 2,000,000 to the recipient, asking to reply to a gmail address, but sent from a different address. The e-mail text includes a link to this Wikipedia page about him "to read more about me". Maybe it is worth mentioning this on the page, so potential victims do not fall prey to it by finding general statements from the spam e-mail true by reading Wikipedia and so building false trust in that spam e-mail. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.178.154.51 (talk) 14:39, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Moi aussi GenacGenac (talk) 18:55, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Can confirm. Still beeing used. --2A02:8108:900:728:396B:41C9:9C85:19FC (talk) 09:02, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Still used, this Wikipedia page is still mentioned to read more about me --Malanoqa (talk) 10:44, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Still used, December 2020. Agnerf (talk) 12:54, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I added a statement in the article. --Malanoqa (talk) 11:49, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, loads of scammers referencing this Wiki and bombarding mailboxes throughout the World.

Confirm spam as of this date

Philanthropy section

[edit]

Can someone please add the following to the Foundation/university subsection before the last part -"The Azim Premji University was established under an Act ..."

  • In March 2019, Premji pledged an additional 34% of Wipro stock held by him to the foundation. At a current value of about USD 7.5 billion, this allocation will bring the total endowment from him to the foundation to USD 21 billion (current value).[1]

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 223.225.248.167 (talk • contribs) 07:23, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Done NiciVampireHeart 09:46, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rather disappointed the above has not been updated in the article yet. While there are a couple hundred people on the giving pledge list, very few have actually made material donations against their pledges. In Premji's case, he has already exceeded the given pledge commitment.

References

  1. ^ Arnab Paul (March 13, 2019). "Wipro Chairman Premji pledges 34 percent of company shares for philanthropy". Bengaluru, India. Reuters. Retrieved March 14, 2019.

Page misused in SPAM

[edit]

This page is actually referenced in german spam/junk mails, just for making it more trustful. Maybe there should be placed a single notice about this at the beginning or maybe before the headline of this page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nolbelt (talk • contribs) 13:38, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is also being referenced by English spam emails. I agree, there should be a warning at the top of the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mwakelin (talk • contribs) 15:36, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]


I got those spams, too, and they are quite obnoxious in spamming (several copies a day). The Azim Premji Foundation is aware of these spams, apparently: https://azimpremjifoundation.org/alerts-online-scams-fradulent-mails — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:E6:9748:C6A3:50F0:2D71:E920:79E1 (talk) 16:19, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, loads of scammers referencing this Wiki and bombarding mailboxes throughout the World. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7F:608A:AC00:F054:C7E9:21A0:88DE (talk) 11:58, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

While the scam is around and about, the notice on top of the page substantially modifies the content of the wikipedia article pages, is not related to the content of the wikipedia entry whatsoever (save for the mention of the subject) and should be removed as per WP:NOTPART. MetroMapFinalRender.svg (talk) 19:51, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Since no one did it, the page is reverted back to the original state before it was vandalised. MetroMapFinalRender.svg (talk) 16:25, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What would be about a short notice anywhere in the article (e.g. in one of the leading paragraphs), as it exists in the German version of this article? LK5042 (talk) 12:38, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Citation

[edit]

Citation needed: [1]

RicardoBrug (talk) 18:37, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://azimpremjifoundation.org/alerts-online-scams-fradulent-mails
 Done – Thjarkur (talk) 20:01, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 27 March 2020

[edit]

"born in ... India in a Nizari Ismaili Shia Muslim[12]" is incorrect information as the cited link [12] https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/ahmedabad/Gujaratis-the-shining-feather-in-market-cap/articleshow/2201465.cms?referral=PM doesn't mention the same anywhere in the article, furtermore it is widely known he has never mentioned in any interview that he is from Nizari Ismaili Shia Muslim, but from Kutchhi Parsi Family, whih has been mentioned in the cited source also. Probbly done for communal interests, please check and update accordingly. Debasishbanerjee (talk) 00:08, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Debasishbanerjee: Please review my changes. If you are satisfied, request closed. If not, reactivate your request and ping me. {{SUBST:replyto|Can I Log In}}PLEASE copy and paste the code to reply(Talk) 22:00, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

About

[edit]

Azim Premji has paid the highest zakat in the world about 50% of his wealth i.e.,570 billion rupees (570,000,000,000).


Please add it. Bill gates is not at the first. Zaman Naiya 29 (talk) 03:48, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What's the source of the material? If you can find a reputable source as ascribed per WP:VERIFY, then add it into the article.MetroMapFinalRender.svg (talk) 19:54, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Missing Space

[edit]

Is it possible, that the sentence "In 2001, he founded Azim Premji Foundation,a non-profit organization." in the section "Philanthropy" misses a space after the second comma? LK5042 (talk) 12:33, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 25 August 2025

[edit]

Please remove this line as it is misleading and the specific case was quashed subsequently by the Supreme Court. "In 2022, legal proceedings were initiated by a court in Bengaluru against Azim Premji for alleged corruption.[30]"

Please refer this: https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/sc-takes-note-of-apology-of-litigant-for-past-conduct-of-filing-cases-against-ex-wipro-chief-premji-2814921 Venkatraman K K (talk) 04:25, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Day Creature (talk) 14:59, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 25 August 2025 (2)

[edit]

Change "In 2022, legal proceedings were initiated by a court in Bengaluru against Azim Premji for alleged " to "In 2022, legal proceedings were initiated by a court in Bengaluru against Azim Premji for alleged corruption but Cases Against Wipro's Azim Premji were Closed by Supreme Court" Please refer https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/sc-takes-note-of-apology-of-litigant-for-past-conduct-of-filing-cases-against-ex-wipro-chief-premji-2814921Manmohanmanher (talk) 09:31, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: Better to remove the sentence entirely, since the complaint was found to be frivolous and this is a BLP. Day Creature (talk) 15:00, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of Interest Disclosure

[edit]

Hello fellow editors, In the spirit of transparency and in accordance with WP:COI, I am disclosing that I am a former employee of Wipro, where I worked in a junior capacity for a brief period several years ago (approx. 7 months in 2007-2008). I recently made edits to the article, specifically to add a "Criticism and Controversies" section. The intention behind these edits was to improve the article's balance and ensure it adheres to Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View (WP:NPOV) policy, as the article previously focused almost exclusively on positive aspects. I want to be very clear that all the information I added is strictly based on high-quality, publicly available, and reliable sources. No personal experience, original research, or non-public information was used in these contributions. I welcome scrutiny of these edits to ensure they are neutral, appropriately sourced, and improve the quality of the article. Please feel free to discuss any concerns. Niranjan Ramamurthy (talk) 05:14, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 22 September 2025

[edit]

Please delete below lines as this are false info and have been written with intention of defaming purposely Criticism and Controversies. Source 38 is also fake Premji has been noted for a corporate culture of extreme frugality at Wipro, which has at times been a source of criticism. He has been widely reported to monitor the number of toilet paper rolls used in Wipro facilities and to insist that employees switch off lights when leaving their offices.[38] Anecdotes about him flying economy class, staying in company guest houses instead of five-star hotels, and using modest cars have been cited by critics as reflecting a penny-pinching culture that extended to employee compensation and benefits, particularly for junior staff.[39]

In 2022, Wipro became a focal point of a nationwide debate on dual employment, or "moonlighting". The company fired 300 employees found to be working for its competitors simultaneously. Then-chairman Rishad Premji called the practice "cheating—plain and simple."[40] The company's rigid stance and subsequent terminations were criticized by some industry analysts and employee advocates as being out of touch with modern workplace expectations, especially in the post-pandemic gig economy.[41]

In 2010, Wipro disclosed to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) that it was investigating an embezzlement of around $4 million by one of its finance department employees. The company's controller was terminated following the discovery. The incident led to an informal inquiry by the SEC into the matter and raised questions about the company's internal financial controls during that period.[42] Manmohanmanher (talk) 12:51, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the link supporting these articles are not available Manmohanmanher (talk) 13:23, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Nubzor [T][C] 16:36, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to edit request: Decline deletion of sourced content per policy, and confirm broken links have been fixed.

[edit]

Not done. The core issue of broken sources has been fully resolved, but the request to delete the entire section is declined per Wikipedia's content policies.

@Manmohanmanher: Hi, and thank you for filing this edit request. You made a very important point—the citations in that section were indeed broken, and the article's quality was suffering because of it. I appreciate you taking the time to highlight this issue.

I've now updated the article to resolve this. As you can see, the "Moonlighting" controversy is now supported by the India Today source, and the SEC settlement is sourced to the Deccan Chronicle article. Your feedback was essential in getting this fixed.

Regarding the request to delete the section entirely, I'd like to explain the relevant Wikipedia policies, as they are central to our shared mission of building a reliable and neutral encyclopedia. Our goal is to summarize what independent, reliable sources have published, without taking a side.

For a biography of a public figure, this means covering both achievements and noteworthy, reliably sourced controversies. To do otherwise would violate our core policy of Neutral Point of View. When reliable, mainstream publications report on a controversy, our job is to summarize that coverage, not to decide if the information is "defamatory." This is covered by our policy on Verifiability. Removing valid, sourced criticism is sometimes referred to as whitewashing and runs contrary to our policy that Wikipedia is not to be used for promotion. The encyclopedia's integrity depends on presenting a balanced and complete picture.

The events described are part of the public record, and leaving them out would give our readers an incomplete and imbalanced view.

Thank you once more for your valuable input. It has directly led to a more robust and accurately sourced article, which is a great outcome for everyone. Niranjan Ramamurthy (talk) 14:00, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have gone ahead and removed this content per the edit request. My edit summary should be clear enough. Per your disclosed COI, I think it's concerning you making a "Criticisms and Controversies" section here. Both of these additions you've included are about the company, and including them on this article of an individual, when the sources do not even mention the individual, and the written prose does not even mention the individual, does not seem appropriate and is out of scope. Your NPOV justification does not make sense, as again there is nothing being said about Azim Premji in your addition--only the company. Nubzor [T][C] 16:43, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Nubzor,
The section was mainly about APJ, which was edited due to dead links. What remained were those of the company. As an ex employee 20 years back, my disclosed COI was to only show no WP:PROMO and for a WP:NPOV, there were these news articles. Not mentioning those would come across as bias by omission and possibly whitewashing. However, removing them is absolutely your call. If anything, I only have good memories of the company and this person, having worked in the same building in the corporate office.
Thanks,
Niranjan Ramamurthy (talk) Niranjan Ramamurthy (talk) 16:51, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Nubzor,
Regarding your concern about a Criticisms and Controversies part, here's the original section:
Premji has been noted for a corporate culture of extreme frugality at Wipro, which has at times been a source of criticism. He has been widely reported to monitor the number of toilet paper rolls used in Wipro facilities and to insist that employees switch off lights when leaving their offices.[38] Anecdotes about him flying economy class, staying in company guest houses instead of five-star hotels, and using modest cars have been cited by critics as reflecting a penny-pinching culture that extended to employee compensation and benefits, particularly for junior staff.[39]
In 2022, Wipro became a focal point of a nationwide debate on dual employment, or "moonlighting". The company fired 300 employees found to be working for its competitors simultaneously. Then-chairman Rishad Premji called the practice "cheating—plain and simple."[40] The company's rigid stance and subsequent terminations were criticized by some industry analysts and employee advocates as being out of touch with modern workplace expectations, especially in the post-pandemic gig economy.[41]
In 2010, Wipro disclosed to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) that it was investigating an embezzlement of around $4 million by one of its finance department employees. The company's controller was terminated following the discovery. The incident led to an informal inquiry by the SEC into the matter and raised questions about the company's internal financial controls during that period.[42]
The earlier sources have led to a soft 404 for some reason. However, here's another publication that's spoken about it - https://mumbaimirror.indiatimes.com/others/sunday-read/the-life-of-a-simple-billionaire/articleshow/78976716.html. I had not added the section back with the revised source, and felt better to just remove it. However, it is here for the record if you or other editors want to take a closer look. There's probably more sources online, but I think having these in the talk pages would help with clarity.
Thanks,
Niranjan Ramamurthy (talk) Niranjan Ramamurthy (talk) 17:22, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't particularly have an opinion your initial writing--other than the first part was at least focused on Azim, so as long as it was appropriately cited with reliable sources, I could see why it may be included. I am not familiar with India Times so I will leave that to you/others.
The SEC portion I still don't see what that has to do with Azim and feel that would be inappropriate to include as written/cited, unless there was some connection or mention of Azim in the sources and in the written prose. Otherwise, it seems more appropriate for the company's page. Nubzor [T][C] 17:36, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Heads-up on the new sections

[edit]

Hey all,

Just a heads-up, I've added a couple of sections covering some resolved legal cases and a recent public engagement. I know a 'Criticism' section was nuked before, and wanted to get ahead of any concerns.

Totally get why the old one was removed – it was way more about Wipro the company than Premji the person, so it was a fair WP:SCOPE call. This new version sticks only to things where Premji himself is named in the sources, and the sourcing is top-tier: we're talking about The Times of India, The Economic Times, and NDTV. These aren't obscure blogs; they're major, reliable publications per WP:RS.

Frankly, these issues are well-known among locals in India. For Wikipedia to be a well-respected encyclopedia, it can't just ignore what reputable sources are openly reporting. It's vital that the article isn't guarded by editors who might be giving WP:UNDUE weight to positive information—whether they're just fans or, as we sometimes see, possible paid PR personnel. Reverting well-sourced, neutral criticism is how an article becomes whitewashed, which violates the core principle of WP:NPOV. In a country where journalistic articles can sometimes get taken down, it's even more crucial for a project like Wikipedia to neutrally present the facts that have been reliably reported.

For the record, I'm being deliberately selective here. I haven't even touched on other well-known controversies like the whole Wipro 'moonlighting' saga that led to mass firings, or the endless stories about his personal frugality that some sources have framed critically. I'm leaving those out for now, but I'm mentioning them here so it's clear on the record that the new additions are the most concrete, encyclopedic, and directly attributable points. I'm hoping other editors will take a closer look into it.

Quick heads-up on WP:COI: Just so we're all clear, I'm a former Wipro employee and even worked at the Sarjapur campus. But this isn't me trying to grind an WP:AXE or do any PR. My edits are compliant with WP:BLP policy—they are neutral, carefully sourced, and directly relevant to the subject. My goal is to help build a balanced article, not a whitewashed one.

PS: I used an LLM for copy-editing and to help structure this post, but the core text, research, and all link verifications were done by me.

Cheers, Niranjan Ramamurthy (talk) 19:59, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 6 October 2025

[edit]

Can we change the heading under Criticism and controversies -

Change Asset Transfer Case (Ended 2022)- False Asset Transfer case and Labor Law Violation Case (Dismissed 2024) as False Labor Law Violation Case

As this looks negative in sentiment and to a Person with Second highest Indian civilian award doesnt look good. This is not only damaging Azim Premji reputation but also damaging the reputation of India's Largest Philanthropist. Manmohanmanher (talk) 11:55, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Manmohanmanher,
I appreciate you explaining your reasoning. I understand the desire to ensure that resolved legal matters are not presented in a misleadingly negative light.
The key challenge here is balancing fairness with Wikipedia's foundational policy of a Neutral Point of View (WP:NPOV). The policy requires that we avoid taking sides. Using a word like "False" in a heading is considered non-neutral because it frames the topic with a definitive judgment from the start.
It's standard practice for biographies of major public figures, including the world's most prominent philanthropists, to have sections covering sourced criticisms or legal challenges. This encyclopedic approach does not detract from their overall reputation. Our job is not to make someone look good or bad, but to state things matter-of-factly. To illustrate this commitment to sourcing and neutrality, please note that I have deliberately omitted the widely circulated anecdotes about his personal frugality. While these stories were popular among employees and framed critically by some, they are not included here because they largely lack the backing of high-quality, mainstream publications required by our policies. We only include what is verifiable and directly reported by top-tier sources.
The standard encyclopedic practice is to use a neutral heading to identify the topic (e.g., the name of the case) and then use the prose within the section to explain the outcome. If you feel the text isn't clear enough about the resolution, I'm open to discussing how we can improve the wording to better reflect the sources, while keeping the headings neutral.
So, while we must decline the change to the headings per policy, we can certainly work together to ensure the section's content is impeccably neutral and accurately reports the final outcome of these events.
Also, if you're a PR personnel or part of APJ's legal team, or have a COI in any way, you're supposed to disclose it.
Best, Niranjan Ramamurthy (talk) 12:27, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done see Niranjan reply above. Slomo666 (talk) 12:58, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion about recent removal of criticism section

[edit]

Hi @Yuvaank:,

Could you elaborate a bit on your removal of the "Criticism and controversies" section? Your edit summary mentioned WP:UNDUE.

As you might have seen on the talk page, this version was specifically written to address the WP:SCOPE concerns that @Nubzor: had raised earlier.

My thinking was that because these legal cases were covered heavily in major sources like the Times of India and reached the Supreme Court, they would be significant enough to include. I'd be interested to hear your perspective on why this might not meet the WP:UNDUE standard.

Also pinging @Slomo666: and @Gråbergs Gråa Sång: who were involved in the recent discussions here. It would be good to get your input as well so we can find a consensus.

Thanks, Niranjan Ramamurthy (talk) 16:41, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't seem to have been in any recent discussions here afaict, but I did rename that section awhile back.[1] I have not looked into quality of sourcing or anything like that, but my basic assumption is that a section titled "Criticism and controversies" will generally suck, more at WP:CRITS which is an essay. I remember thinking "if these cases were thrown out like we seem to be saying, should we include them at all?" or in WP-terms WP:PROPORTION. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:00, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Gråbergs Gråa Sång:,
Thanks for the feedback, that's a really helpful point.
You're right about WP:CRITS – those sections can definitely suck for any BLP. I have no issue with a different heading like "Legal affairs," or even integrating the content somewhere else if it works better.
On the WP:PROPORTION question, my view is that the notability comes from the heavy media coverage, not the final verdict. A case that runs for years and goes to the Supreme Court is a major, publicly reported event for a person's biography. It feels similar to other sourced issues, like the reports about him refusing to give up Wipro land for a public road at the Bangalore CM's request.
If we don't mention these kinds of significant, widely-covered events, my concern is that the article doesn't give a fully balanced picture per WP:NPOV.
What are your thoughts on that?
Thanks again, Niranjan Ramamurthy (talk) 17:43, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This [2] is what I looked briefly at. The second item, sourced by [3], seems like a nothingburger to me, but IANAL. Also WP:TIMESOFINDIA, but this is hardly paid content.
The longer paragraph, sourced to [4] begins "The Supreme Court Thursday took note of unconditional apology of R Subramanian, who through various companies initiated a maze of "frivolous" litigations against Azim Premji..." So yes, that happened, but should we bother to cover "frivolous" stuff? If it was a big thing for years, perhaps we should, I have no informed opinion.
Both items seems to fit poorly under a "Criticism" heading. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:25, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Gråbergs Gråa Sång:,
Thanks for digging into the sources, I appreciate you taking the time to look at this.
You've raised the key question here: why should we include legal cases that were ultimately dismissed?
My thinking is that there's a pattern of significant, publicly-reported events that are currently missing from the article. The main ones are the two court cases and, to a lesser extent, the public thing with the Bangalore CM over the Wipro campus usage for public transport.
While the CM letter was widely reported, I can see the argument that it's more of a corporate matter than a personal one, so I think we can set that one aside to keep the focus strictly on him.
But the two court cases are different—they are directly about him as an individual. My reasoning is that the encyclopedic WP:WEIGHT comes from the fact that these were prominent, multi-year public events, not from the final verdict. Documenting that these sourced legal challenges occurred—and showing they were resolved in his favor—gives a much more complete and neutral picture than omitting them entirely.
I completely agree with you that none of this belongs in a "Criticism" section. That frames it the wrong way.
What if we create a neutral "Legal affairs" section to briefly document the two court cases and their outcomes? That seems to solve the WP:CRITS problem while still giving a balanced overview of his public record.
Does that approach seem more reasonable? Niranjan Ramamurthy (talk) 18:47, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I was not really involved in any discussions on this page and I would prefer not to get involved as I know basically nothing about the subject matter.
I merely closed the request after seeing you had already given an answer which more than explained that this was incompatible with the edit request guidelines. Slomo666 (talk) 21:03, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hey @Slomo666:, no problem at all, thanks for clarifying. Niranjan Ramamurthy (talk) 21:08, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Yuvaank:,
Just following up here since I've not heard from you.
I was looking at your edits on the Wipro article, and it helped me understand your approach. Your call to swap the HR issues for the big SEC fine is a focus on lasting significance, not just recent news. Sort of weird that the SEC thing was ages ago, but you've meticulously worked on it.
That's why I'm a bit confused about your revert on this Premji article. My thinking is that a legal case that runs for years, involves a major NGO, and goes all the way to the Supreme Court is an event with that kind of lasting weight, even if it was dismissed in the end.
The idea isn't a "Criticism" section, but a neutral "Legal affairs" section that just states what happened.
Could you explain why the SEC fine meets the bar for WP:WEIGHT, but these Supreme Court cases don't? Genuinely trying to understand the distinction.
Thanks, Niranjan Ramamurthy (talk) 18:49, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I already pointed out WP:WEIGHT/WP:UNDUE in relation to the lawsuits, both in another discussion and in my edit summary. The traffic congestion story is a WP:NOTNEWS violation. I also suggested taking any further queries to the help desk. I don't understand why you simply refuse to read these policies, and instead keep pestering me with AI-generated messages. Anyone can file a lawsuit against anyone, making any kind of accusation; that doesn't mean we include every fringe court case on WP:BLP pages. For instance, Narendra Modi likely has dozens of cases filed against him by random individuals, like this and this, yet you don't see any of these mentioned on his article (which is a WP:GA). Why do you figure that is? (Don't answer, that was a rhetorical question). Yuvaank (talk) 09:01, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Comment: Inclusion of legal cases in article

[edit]

Dear editors,

I'm hoping to get some fresh eyes on a content dispute here. The core issue is whether two major, long-running court cases against Premji, which were ultimately dismissed, should be included in the article.

  • My position is that they must be included for the article to be neutral and balanced. These cases were not minor; they were covered for years in major newspapers and one went to the Supreme Court. Omitting them entirely feels like a case of bias by omission.

On Wikipedia, even serving prime ministers like Narendra Modi have their articles cover quashed legal cases in detail because they were significant public events. I believe the same standard should apply here. The proposal is to put them in a neutral "Legal affairs" section, clearly stating the final outcomes.

  • The counter-argument has been that since the cases were dismissed, they are "fringe" issues that lack due weight for a biography. It was the same editor who brought up the Modi rhetoric.

The content (the legal cases on Premji and criticisms) was removed from the article while the talk page discussion was ongoing, and that discussion has now stalled. It would be great to get a clear community consensus on this.

Multiple attempts were made to make this BLP promotional, removing anything that's negative. Need some neutral eyes on this please.

Thanks, Niranjan Ramamurthy (talk) 09:56, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It would be better to include a draft of the changes you propose to include. I think if the news had significant coverage it should absolutely be included in the BLP, but it should also be WP:DUE and WP:NPOV. A draft would help establish this. Kingsacrificer (talk) 17:41, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Kingsacrificer,
Thank you for looking into this. Here's my draft:
==Legal affairs==
Beginning in 2020, Azim Premji was the target of a multi-year legal campaign. The litigation involved numerous complaints filed by an NGO named "India Awake for Transparency" and other entities connected to R. Subramanian.[1] According to reports, over 70 separate cases were ultimately filed as part of the campaign.[2] The campaign led to the Karnataka High Court jailing two of the litigants for contempt of court.[3][4] The matter was resolved in March 2022, when the Supreme Court noted an unconditional apology from Subramanian and dismissed the pending cases.[5]
---
Do let me know your thoughts. I think this is WP:NPOV and definitely WP:DUE. I'm not including other cases and criticisms.
Thanks,
Niranjan Ramamurthy (talk) Niranjan Ramamurthy (talk) 18:53, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
POV and DUE is fine, although the wording was the target of could be improved upon. But there is no mention on what the allegations actually were. Including a brief overview of that would be ideal. Kingsacrificer (talk) 06:37, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Kingsacrificer
Thank you. I've adjusted the verbiage and added context to the case from both sides. Please check:
== Legal affairs ==
Beginning in 2020, Azim Premji was the subject of a multi-year legal campaign from a group led by R. Subramanian. The core of the allegations, filed through an NGO, was that Premji and his associates had committed criminal breach of trust, cheating, and conspiracy by illegally transferring assets from three specific investment companies into a new private trust that he controlled.[1]
The Karnataka High Court dismissed these complaints, ruling that the petitioners lacked the required legal sanction to prosecute. The court also described the ongoing campaign of over 70 lawsuits as a series of "frivolous litigations" and jailed two of the complainants for contempt of court.[1][4][3] The entire matter was resolved in March 2022 after the Supreme Court noted an unconditional apology from Subramanian and closed all pending cases.[5]
-----
I think this version now tells the full story by focusing on the court's own findings. FYI, there are other cases and criticisms that I've decided not to include. There was a separate labor law case from February 2024, but the news links for it have all turned into soft 404s, making the sources unusable per WP:V. There was also the story about the CM's request for campus land, but that felt more like a Wipro corporate issue than something for Premji's personal biography (WP:SCOPE). I'm mentioning this just to show that I'm trying to be selective and stick to what is well-sourced and directly relevant.
Once we've settled on the final version to include, I'll also add Wayback Machine backups to the sources, so that they don't turn into soft 404s as well.
Thanks, Niranjan Ramamurthy (talk) 10:12, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This sounds good. Only caveat is adding the NGO name. Infact, I think it's more important to include the NGO name than Subramanian's, unless there's some previous context in the article about him.
Other than that, I think this is fine. Would you be creating a new RfC with this draft paragraph? Kingsacrificer (talk) 13:14, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Kingsacrificer
I've added some context to make the background comprehensive. Please check:
== Legal affairs ==
Beginning in 2020, Azim Premji was the subject of a multi-year legal campaign from a group led by R. Subramanian, a litigant who had been in a financial dispute with Premji since the collapse of Subramanian's Subhiksha retail chain in which Premji had invested.[6] The core of the allegations, filed through the NGO "India Awake for Transparency," was that Premji and his associates had committed criminal breach of trust, cheating, and conspiracy by illegally transferring assets into a new private trust that he controlled.[1]
The complaints were dismissed by the Karnataka High Court, which ruled that the petitioners lacked the required legal sanction to prosecute. The court also described the campaign of over 70 lawsuits as a series of "frivolous litigations" and, in a contempt of court ruling, noted that Subramanian was the "alter ego" of the NGO. The High Court ultimately sentenced two of the complainants to two months in prison.[1][4][3] The entire matter was resolved in March 2022 after the Supreme Court noted an unconditional apology from Subramanian and closed all pending cases.[5]
-----
This is an RFC already, and the next step is to see if we can build a consensus here in the discussion. Given that you helped shape it, would you be willing to formally Support this final version? It would be a great first step to show we're on the right track.
Thanks,
Niranjan Ramamurthy (talk) Niranjan Ramamurthy (talk) 13:54, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Kingsacrificer:,
Just to follow up, it looks like we have a thoughtful and strong counter-argument from Markbassett, who is leaning toward exclusion based on WP:BLPCRIME and the article's current length.
This is exactly what the RFC is for: to weigh these different, valid interpretations of policy. My argument is still that the sheer scale of this event (70+ lawsuits, jail time, a Supreme Court resolution) gives it the WP:WEIGHT needed for inclusion, even in a very concise form. As discussed, it would be in a new "Legal Affairs" section and wont mix with the Career or other sections. I'll make sure web archive backups are added, so the news sources don't turn into soft 404s overnight.
Given this new perspective, it would be incredibly helpful to know where you stand. Do you still Support the inclusion of a concise, neutral draft like the one we worked on? A formal !vote would really help clarify the consensus.
Thanks, Niranjan Ramamurthy (talk) 05:29, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:UNDUE - The proposed text versions would be a disproportionately big and prominent part of the biography, when the court case just isn't prominent in coverage about the man. This article is fairly short, giving just one line to the 1940s, two lines to the 1960s, one line to the 1980s, and lacking mention of things like mention of his retirement -- so giving 5 lines and space plus a section of its own is like the whole of his Career section which seems too much. Also -- while I can find mentions if I specifically add 'court case'[7], it seems a large part of the text there and in the proposal is about Subramanian and just doesn't seem a major involvement by Premji or to have much impact to Premji's life -- more a subject for Subramanian than here. Maybe if the article was larger and the court text proposal was just a few lines in some new section that isn't only about it. But at the moment I'm more inclined to suggest WP:BLPCRIME at "editors must seriously consider not including material" that mention the accusation took place at all. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 20:09, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi @Markbassett
    Thank you for the feedback. WP:BLPCRIME is interesting and you're right, we have to handle this carefully.
    My view is that the story here isn't really about the initial accusation, which was dismissed. It's about the legal campaign itself—the fact that this multi-year, 70-lawsuit saga happened to him, became a major public event, and ended with his complete vindication. Omitting that entire chapter feels like a significant gap in his biography.
    However, it's true that the article itself is a tad too short for a big, detailed section on this. That's a fair call on WP:UNDUE.
    What if we tried to cover it, but in a much more concise way? Something like this:
    ----
    Starting in 2020, Premji was the subject of a multi-year campaign of over 70 lawsuits filed by an NGO, "India Awake for Transparency." The Karnataka High Court described the suits as "frivolous," dismissed the cases, and jailed two of the complainants for contempt of court. The entire matter was closed in 2022 after an unconditional apology from the main complainant was noted at the Supreme Court.
    ----
    This is much shorter and puts the focus on the final outcome. Does an approach like this seem more reasonable?
    Thanks,
    Niranjan Ramamurthy (talk) Niranjan Ramamurthy (talk) 20:25, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Mmm - I'm still leaning to just not mention frivolous lawsuits, particularly since it has such little relative external prominence and from BLPCRIME to just show some restraint about such. A generic search on the name got lots of hits and lots more detail on detail on his life than this article shows [8][9][10][11][12], and the court case just isn't there. Even if the proposal was reduced to just one line (Starting 2020, Premji was subject of over 70 frivolous lawsuits by NGO "India Awake for Transparency", dismissed by the courts and closed in 2022 after an unconditional apology from the main complainant was noted at the Supreme Court.) as the last line of the Career section -- it still seems a bit out of line to put it in this article. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 21:54, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi @Markbassett,
    I understand your perspective. Thank you for taking time to explain in detail.
    Cheers, Niranjan Ramamurthy (talk) 05:18, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
INCLUDE: I have referred to the above arguments but if the legal campaign has garnered attention in media, even if it is fairly short, the article MUST mention it. WP:UNDUE cannot be used to exclude necessary information about the BLP on the grounds that the rest of the article is short. The section is not trying to include a viewpoint (which WP:UNDUE is most applicable to) but media-reported facts.
The length of the section can be reduced if a majority of others feel so, but its inclusion should not be challenged.
As an aside, I also strongly feel that his Career section can be further expanded. Similar other personalities have more comprehensive articles, which could be used for reference. Kingsacrificer (talk) 09:58, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Kingsacrificer
Thank you for your feedback. You're right that a balanced article is how Wikipedia should be.
Regarding the other editors' concern that the other parts are too short, I will do my best to help expand the career and other sections with good references.
For this RFC, here's the final draft I am proposing:
== Legal affairs ==
Beginning in 2020, Azim Premji was the subject of a multi-year legal campaign from a group led by R. Subramanian, a litigant who had been in a financial dispute with Premji since the collapse of his Subhiksha retail chain in which Premji had invested.[6] The core of the allegations, filed through the NGO "India Awake for Transparency," was that Premji and his associates had committed criminal breach of trust, cheating, and conspiracy by illegally transferring assets into a new private trust.[1]
The complaints were dismissed by the Karnataka High Court, which ruled that the petitioners lacked the required legal sanction to prosecute. The court also described the campaign of over 70 lawsuits as a series of "frivolous litigations" and noted in a contempt ruling that the main complainant was the "alter ego" of the NGO. The High Court ultimately sentenced two of the complainants to two months in prison.[1][4][3] The entire matter was resolved in March 2022 after the Supreme Court noted an unconditional apology from the main complainant and closed all pending cases.[5]
---
This version is not too concise that it omits vital details like the allegations and the court's sayings. It is neutral, and talks matter of factly. Do let me know what you think. Niranjan Ramamurthy (talk) 19:38, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
from a group led by R. Subramanian, a litigant who had been in a financial dispute with Premji since the collapse of his Subhiksha retail chain in which Premji had invested. The core of the allegations, filed through the NGO "India Awake for Transparency," This must be compressed. His past about the retail chain may not be relevant here. The rest seems fine, although could use some trimming. Kingsacrificer (talk) 18:05, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Kingsacrificer,
I've cut it down to the bare essentials:
== Legal affairs ==
Beginning in 2020, Azim Premji was the subject of a multi-year legal campaign initiated by the NGO "India Awake for Transparency." The campaign involved over 70 lawsuits, which the Karnataka High Court described as "frivolous litigations." The court dismissed the cases and sentenced two of the complainants to prison for contempt of court. The matter was closed in 2022 after the Supreme Court noted an unconditional apology from the main complainant.
-----
This version is much tighter and sticks to the most important facts. It addresses the WP:UNDUE concerns by being concise, while still covering this significant event.
This is probably the compromise draft that can achieve a clear consensus. Once this is through, I'll work on the expansion of other sections.
Thanks, Niranjan Ramamurthy (talk) 08:32, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is perfect. I support its inclusion. Kingsacrificer (talk) 09:16, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I came from the noticeboard. It think it's fine to include neutrally. The lawsuits were prominent, but given the size of the article, it should only be a few of sentences.

Legal affairs — Beginning in 2020, Premji was named in a series of lawsuits filed via the NGO India Awake for Transparency. The Karnataka High Court characterized the suits as "frivolous," dismissed them, and jailed two complainants for contempt. In March 2022, the Supreme Court noted an unconditional apology from the principal complainant and closed the remaining matters.

Sibshops (talk) 17:42, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, thank you. Niranjan Ramamurthy (talk) 02:03, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ a b c d e f g "HC junks two private plaints against Azim Premji, wife". The New Indian Express. 21 January 2021.
  2. ^ "Supreme Court lauds Azim Premji for forgiving person who filed over 70 cases against him". The New Indian Express. 12 March 2022.
  3. ^ a b c d "Repeated cases against Premji land duo in jail". The Times of India. 18 January 2022.
  4. ^ a b c d "Two jailed for filing 'frivolous litigations' against Azim Premji". The Hindu. 18 January 2022.
  5. ^ a b c d "SC Takes Note Of Apology Of Litigant For Past Conduct Of Filing Cases Against Ex-Wipro Chief Premji". NDTV. 10 March 2022.
  6. ^ a b "Subhiksha Founder R Subramanian Tenders Public Apology to Wipro's Azim Premji & Others; Withdraws All Cases". Moneylife. 5 May 2022.
  7. ^ "Cases against Azim Premji filed by former Subhiksha stores' founder closed by SC".
  8. ^ "Azim Premji".
  9. ^ "A look into the life of Azim Premji, India's biggest philanthropist".
  10. ^ "Azim Premji Biography: Early Life, Family, Education, Career, Philanthropy and Recognitions".
  11. ^ "Azim Premji Bio, Early Life, Career, Net Worth and Salary]".
  12. ^ "Azim Premji: The Man Beyond the Billions - Sundeep Khanna, Varun Sood - Google Books".
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Azim_Premji&oldid=1323688478"