UK Labour attacks Sunak over alleged Infosys VIP access via family ties

In early February 2024, Britain's Opposition Labour Party leveled a pointed accusation at Prime Minister Rishi Sunak: that the Indian software giant Infosys had been handed preferential treatment by the government because of his family ties to the company's co-founder. The allegation emerged from documents obtained through a freedom of information request and reported by the Sunday Mirror, painting a picture of special access granted to a firm in which Sunak's wife held substantial financial interests.

The centerpiece of Labour's complaint was a meeting held in April 2023 between Trade Minister Lord Dominic Johnson and Infosys executives at the company's offices in Bengaluru. According to the meeting readout, Johnson had made explicit his eagerness to see Infosys expand its footprint across Britain and signaled his readiness to help make that happen. A steering brief prepared ahead of the encounter outlined objectives that included reassuring the company about the UK economy's prospects and reminding executives of the support available through the Department for Business and Trade. Johnson also walked them through the benefits of Britain's high-potential individual visa scheme, a pathway designed to attract skilled workers from abroad.

Sunak's wife, Akshata Murty, is the daughter of Infosys co-founder Narayana Murthy and holds a stake in the company valued at approximately £500 million—roughly 0.91 percent of the firm. In the financial year preceding this controversy, she had collected millions of pounds in dividends from that holding. The connection was direct and substantial, and it formed the crux of Labour's complaint. Shadow minister Jonathan Ashworth told the Mirror that the public would naturally wonder why a company so personally close to the Prime Minister appeared to have received this VIP treatment. He invoked the memory of pandemic-era spending scandals, noting that after the Conservative government had distributed billions in taxpayer money to well-connected firms for faulty personal protective equipment, the appearance of favoritism toward Infosys would raise eyebrows. "There are serious questions to answer," Ashworth said.

The government's response was procedural and measured. A Department for Business and Trade spokesperson defended the meeting as routine engagement with international investors, part of a broader effort to champion Britain as an investment destination and secure commitments worth billions of pounds. The department argued that such meetings with businesses and investors—including a range of Indian firms—were standard practice and drove investment and job creation across the country. The statement did not directly address the specific nature of the Infosys meeting or acknowledge the family connection.

The controversy was not Sunak's first brush with questions about his wife's financial interests. The briefing documents for the April meeting also noted an objective to reassure Infosys that a proposed India-UK free trade agreement would create new opportunities and investor-friendly policies. This detail fed into earlier Opposition concerns that Infosys was seeking visa benefits tied to the trade deal. Beyond that, Labour had previously raised questions about Murty's decision to liquidate an investment venture called Catamaran Ventures, which she had incorporated in 2013 with her husband as a director before he stepped down in 2015. Financial statements revealed she had decided to wind down the firm as a going concern.

The scrutiny of Murty's finances had a longer history still. Months earlier, it had emerged that she held legal non-domicile tax status in Britain, meaning she did not have to pay UK tax on her Indian income—a status that sparked significant political backlash. Under pressure from the Opposition, she had eventually relinquished that status and committed to paying all her taxes in the UK, a move she said was necessary to prevent her financial arrangements from becoming a distraction to her husband's political career. Now, with the Infosys meeting documents in the public domain, the question of whether family connections had influenced government decisions on behalf of the company was back in focus, and the government faced demands to explain what had transpired and why.