The Corporate & Commercial Law Society Blog, HNLU

Category: Securities and Exchange Board of India

  • CONSOLIDATION WITHOUT SAFEGUARDS: ANALYSING THE SEBI FPI MASTER CIRCULAR

    CONSOLIDATION WITHOUT SAFEGUARDS: ANALYSING THE SEBI FPI MASTER CIRCULAR

    BY KHUSHI JAIN AND UJJWAL GUPTA, SECOND – YEAR STUDENT AT DR. RAM MANOHAR LOHIYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY, LUCKNOW

    INTRODUCTION

    On 5 December 2025, the Securities and Exchange Board of India (‘SEBI’) issued a Consultation Paper on Review of Master Circular for Foreign Portfolio Investors (‘FPIs’) and Designated Depository Participants (‘DDPs’) (‘Consultation Paper’) proposing the consolidation of the existing consultation paper. This paper aims to streamline hitherto fragmented regulations by consolidating multiple circulars and guidelines into a single instrument. Through the Consultation Paper, efforts are made to revise disclosure and compliance for FPIs and DDPs, beneficial ownership norms, compliance obligations and the role of intermediaries.

    This piece first sets out the key changes introduced through the consolidation. Second, the impact of these changes is analysed on various stakeholders including FPIs and DDPs. Third, key concerns arising from the proposed structure are identified. Towards the end, the Indian approach within a comparative cross-jurisdictional regulatory perspective is discussed. The piece is concluded by offering plausible reforms to address the aforementioned concerns so as to preserve efficiency and accountability.

    KEY PROPOSED CHANGES

    The regulations of FPIs are governed by a layered statutory framework under the SEBI Act 1992, SEBI (Foreign Portfolio Investors) Regulations, 2019 (‘2019 Regulations’) and SEBI Master Circulars and Operational Guidelines. The Consultation Paper would reshape the enforceability provisions of FPI regulation.

    Prominently, the Consultation Paper proposes a comprehensive consolidation of multiple circulars, FAQs, and interpretative notes into a single revised Master Circular governing FPIs and DDPs. It operates as de facto subordinate legislation. Building on this, Regulation 4(c) of the 2019 Regulations mandates FPI to disclose beneficial ownership in accordance with the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 and Financial Action Task Force Recommendations. The Consultation Paper strengthens look-through obligations and identifies natural persons exercising “ownership or control” in a multi-layered investment structure.

    Substantiating on the above provisions, DDPs are provided with registration-related functions and limited ongoing oversight through Regulation 12 of the 2019 Regulations. The Consultation Paper rather shifts their role to frontline regulatory gatekeepers. It inculcates their responsibility for continuous validation of their compliance, enhancing due diligence on FPIs. They are supposed to develop Standard Operating Procedures (‘SOPs’) for validation, real-time monitoring of validation tools such as corporate group repositories, and freeze codes, straining systems under tight timelines like 7-Day Type I change notification.

    This fundamentally extends the disclosure, reporting, and compliance requirements for FPIs by way of more frequent reporting, monitoring and verification of investor information on a continuous basis, and ongoing compliance certification requirements.

    STAKEHOLDER IMPACT ANALYSIS

    There will be asymmetric effects of the proposed changes among the different groups of stakeholders. The changes redistribute regulatory risks and operational burden, having several unintended effects regarding market depth and stability.

    The compliance architecture model can disproportionately affect the passive institutional investors like pension funds and sovereign wealth funds because their investment approach is long-term and non-controlling in essence. Lack of any provision on punitive measures for transitional non-compliance can create considerable legal and commercial uncertainty for market participants. This could result in sudden FPI exits, higher cost of capital for Indian issuers, and higher volatility in the secondary markets, thereby violating Section 11 of the SEBI Act, 1992.

    The Consultation Paper enhances the supervisory authority of SEBI, that could earlier detect concentrated or opaque market positions. However, it also increases institutional dependence on delegated supervision by DDPs, raising coordination and accountability challenges. SEBI may face allegations of inconsistent enforcement or excessive discretion.

    Lastly, the framework may influence volume, composition and stability of foreign capital flows from a market-wide perspective. It relaxes International Financial Services Authority-based FPIs, allowing up to 100% Non-resident Indians/ Overseas Citizens of India/ Resident Indian  participation under strict conditions like pooling, diversification (e.g., no more than 20% in one Indian entity), and independent managers. Foreign institutional investments in the long term may be discouraged due to increased complexities in complying with the debt and equity portions that are expected to be supported by foreign investments. Foreign passive institutional investors may decrease the overall efficiency of the market as a result of less participation in the secondary markets.

    KEY CONCERNS

    Consolidation would result in the conversion of interpretative guidance into mandatory compliance and the expansion of enforceable obligations without any amendment to the 2019 Regulations. It dilutes the effect of delegated legislation principles. Many provisions function as soft law and are not binding rules under Section 30 of the SEBI Act. Thus, the consolidation would make them a binding compliance standard, transforming advisory norms into enforceable duties.

    Moreover, unlike regulations, circulars are not subject to safeguards like legislative scrutiny. Consolidation would thus advance the power of SEBI to alter the compliance structure without any amendment. Consequently, it would also amend the scope of provisions through drafting techniques. Conditional, context-specific, or risk-based obligations are inculcated into general obligations that are to be applicable across the FPI ecosystem. The Consultation Paper could result in omission of caveats and qualifiers. It would broaden the regulatory net without re-examining the substantive framework set out in Regulations 4 and 22 of the 2019 Regulations.

    Furthermore, the Consultation Paper fails to address the doctrine of regulatory equivalence for entities domiciled in jurisdictions that are FATF-compliant. Contradicting the proportionality test, already regulated foreign investors can duplicate and disproportionate disclosure burdens.

    The expansion of the ambit of DDPs leads to regulatory outsourcing. However, it neither ensures any statutory immunity nor delineates liability in erroneous determinations or misclassification of risk. It raises pertinent concerns regarding liability attribution.

    Concerns about constitutional guarantees under Article 19(1)(g) and 19(6) are also raised. Serious concerns about ex post facto interpretation can also exist due to the absence of procedural safeguards of supervisory discretion. It may implicate the principles of audi alteram partem and predictability of the rule of law in financial regulation under the capital regime in India.

    For measures that limit market access, the SEBI Act has laid down a specific procedure to be followed. This includes the requirement that the actions under Section 11B, penal measures under Section 15-I, and suspension or cancellation under Section 12(3) all need a well-reasoned order, prior hearing, adherence to principles of natural justice, and can be challenged in the SAT under Section 15T. As opposed to this, the draft Master Circular for Foreign Portfolio Investors (FPIs) and Designated Depository Participants (DDPs)  (‘Master Circular’) allows trading restrictions via intermediary-led SOPs, without SEBI adjudication, hearing, or an order that can be appealed, and thus sidesteps essential safeguards given in law.

    CROSS-JURISDICTIONAL ANALYSIS

    In the United Kingdom (‘UK’), disclosure or Anti-Money Laundering (‘AML’) failures of foreign investment entities are dealt with by the Financial Conduct Authority through a formal enforcement procedure. Usually, non-compliance leads to supervisory engagement and, if necessary, formal enforcement proceedings initiated by a warning notice. The impacted entities can make representations before an adverse decision is taken against them, and the final decisions are made by the independent Regulatory Decisions Committee. Market access restrictions or licence limitations only arise from a reasoned decision that is subject to appellate review by the upper Tribunal. Unlike as contemplated under the Master Circular, coercive market access restrictions in the UK cannot be imposed by intermediaries and remain exclusively within the Financial Conduct Authority’s (‘FCA’) adjudicatory enforcement process.

    The European Union (‘EU’) framework for portfolio investment compliance operates through MiFID II and anti-money laundering directives. MiFID II does not prescribe automated investor account blocking for Know Your Costumer (‘KYC’) non-compliance; rather, it gives national competent authorities supervisory and investigatory powers, whilst any limitation on market participation must be derived from national law or the trading venue rules. The AML system requires customer due diligence and allows firms to suspend transactions as part of their internal compliance controls. Moreover, when a public authority orders a restriction, the measure is governed by the national procedural law which transposes EU directives and is further guaranteed fundamental procedural safeguards, such as the right to challenge administrative measures before an independent body, and not outsourced to intermediaries.

    In Singapore, the Monetary Authority of Singapore (‘MAS’) supervises AML and disclosure compliance under the Securities and Futures Act through a risk-based supervisory framework. MAS deals with KYC or disclosure breaches by means of supervisory engagement, directions, penalties, or license-related action after the determination of the breach. Automatic trading suspensions or market access suspensions are not usual, and any such coercive restrictions follow well-reasoned decisions to guarantee proportionality and centralised enforcement. Importantly, MAS does not give coercive enforcement powers to market intermediaries, unlike the expanded role that has been considered for DDPs.

    Viewing these jurisdictions collectively, it can be observed that greater transparency and AML compliance can be achieved without having to rely on automated market exclusion mechanisms that bypass prior notice or independent assessment. In this context, the Master Circular delineates a stricter model of regulation than what is necessary, as shown by international practice.

    CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTIONS

    Based on lessons drawn from frameworks discussed above, it is possible that India could prescribe regulatory and procedural safeguards. The following developments can work in tandem for coherent enforcement. 

    Primarily, SEBI should expressly draw a distinction that consolidation of circulars does not transform interpretive guidance or FAQs into binding compliance requirements unless issued under the 2019 Regulations or Section 30 of the SEBI Act. Along with, any provision extending substantive requirements should be brought about only through formal regulatory amendment, following the prescribed legislative safeguards.

    Second, SEBI should desist from retaining conditionality, context-specific qualifiers and risk-based caveats in existing circulars. The Master Circular should operate as an operational guide rather than a source of new general obligations, ensuring that Regulations 4 and 22 of the 2019 Regulations remain the primary substantive framework.

    Third, the consolidated framework must specifically acknowledge the concept of regulatory equivalence applicable to FPIs incorporated in FATF-compliant and well-regulated countries. The requirement of disclosure and KYC must be customized in terms of risks associated with each jurisdiction and type of investor and system significance.

    Fourth, concerning the absence of any measures to shield FPIs from penalties for non-compliance in the transition period, SEBI should provide a definite period for existing FPIs during which non-compliance resulting solely from the newly consolidated obligations shall not be penalised. This will ease both uncertainty and avert sudden market exits.

    Finally, SEBI must clearly define the scope of DDPs’ authority, provide statutory protection for bona fide actions and specify liability allocation in cases of erroneous determinations or misclassification. Coercive or market-access-restrictive decisions should remain exclusively within SEBI’s domain.  Additionally, any restriction on trading, account operations or market access must be preceded by notice, opportunity of hearing, and a reasoned order passed by SEBI under Sections 11B, 12(3), or 15-I of the SEBI Act. Intermediary-led SOPs should not substitute statutory adjudication or appellate remedies under Section 15T.

    The Consultation Paper is veritably an important step towards simplifying the regulation of foreign portfolio investment through consolidation. However, as the authors point out, said consolidation should not weaken statutory protections, proportionality, accountability, or procedural fairness under the SEBI Act and the 2019 Regulations. If there are no adequate safeguards, the draft Master Circular may, in fact, increase the compliance and enforcement burdens and consequences beyond its legal basis. Whether or not this consolidation will ultimately strengthen India’s capital markets depends on the degree of care SEBI exercises in reconciling efficiency and legality in the final framework.

  • Balancing Act: Sebi’s Angel Fund Reforms For Inclusive Startup Growth

    Balancing Act: Sebi’s Angel Fund Reforms For Inclusive Startup Growth

    BY AADIT SHARMA, SECOND – YEAR STUDENT AT DR. RAM MANOHAR LOHIYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY, LUCKNOW

    INTRODUCTION

    India’s startup ecosystem plays a crucial role in economic growth, with angel funds providing essential early-stage investment and mentorship bridging the gap between early seed financing and seed financing. angel investors typically commit between USD 10,000 which can go upto USD 1 million (₹10 lakh to ₹ 8 crore), with greater amounts often provided by syndicates. Despite tighter capital markets and cautious investor sentiment, there were 103 registered angel funds in India holding commitments totalling ₹10,138 crores by Q1 2025. Although early-stage investments declined to approximately $3 billion across 1,500 deals in H1 2025, this sector remains vital for economic development. Recognising this, SEBI introduced reforms via the Alternative Investment Funds (Second Amendment) Regulations and two other circulars in the month of September and October, focusing on revised regulations and relaxed compliance timelines. Key changes introduced include mandating accredited investors, flexible lock-in periods and broadening permissible investments. These reforms aim to modernise angel investing in India.

    However, questions remain whether they will enhance startup funding accessibility or create barriers, especially in underserved regions. This analysis explores the implications of the amendments on the domestic startup funding cycle, offers a comparative analysis with global practices and proposes strategies to improve investment accessibility in India.

    REFRAMING SEBI’S REGULATORY APPROACH TO ANGEL FUNDS

    The 2025 amendments to Securities Exchange Board of India (‘SEBI’)’s Alternative Investment Fund Regulations,2012, (‘AIF’) together with the accompanying circulars, represent a substantive development in the regulatory framework for early-stage investment in India. The regime moves decisively from a primarily prescriptive model to a hybrid approach combining mandatory requirements with enhanced outcome-based flexibility. A pivotal reform is the institution of mandatory investor accreditation  for angel funds, an accredited investor in India is an investor with annual income of Rs. 2 crore or net-worth of Rs. 7.5 crore with 3.5 crore in financial assets, replacing the previous system based solely on financial thresholds.

    This aligns the angel fund framework of India with global regulatory approaches with like that of US SEC Regulation D­ that limits participation on objective accreditation criteria, thereby limiting access to investors who meet specified financial and net-worth thresholds. These investors are presumed to be capable of independently assessing and bearing early-stage investment risk. The minimum investment per portfolio company has been lowered from ₹25 lakh to ₹10 lakh; minimum corpus and commitment thresholds have also been abolished easing fund formation. Notably, changes to the lock-in period will provide greater liquidity, permitting exits within six months in specific cases.

    Angel Funds must now onboard at least five accredited investors before their first close, a measure designed to streamline entry and strengthen fund discipline. The scope of eligible investments has expanded, including Limited Liability Partnerships (‘LLPs’), thereby supporting broader entrepreneurial participation.  Measures such as mandatory investor accreditation, lock-in periods, fund-level investment structures and strict compliance protocols are retained to guard against speculative behaviour. Enhanced transparency is mandated through allocation methodology disclosure in the Private Placement Memorandum (‘PPM’) with additional annual audit requirements for larger funds. The phased compliance timeline reflects SEBI’s intent to balance regulatory rigor with market adaptability. Collectively, these reforms embody SEBI’s model of ‘guided liberalisation’ aiming for a flexible yet robust capital formation environment anchored in transparency and governance.

    STRUCTURAL AND PRACTICAL CONCERNS IN SEBI’S ANGEL FUND REFORMS

    A careful reading of SEBI’s recent circulars indicates that while the reforms appear progressive, they also carry certain structural concerns. The introduction of mandatory accreditation for investors in angel funds, though intended to promote investor protection and align with global practices, may inadvertently restrict the flow of capital by excluding non-accredited investors such as traditional/ legacy angels. This change effectively shifts investment power towards  high-net-worth individuals and institutional syndicates that possess greater organisational structure, compliance capacity and financial depth. Such concentration of investment capacity could lead to capital elitism, gradually marginalising semi-professional angels who, despite lacking formal accreditation, often contribute crucial sectoral knowledge and mentorship to startups. The circular further restricts angel funds from offering units to more than 200 non-accredited investors until September 2026, thereby narrowing the investor pool available to early-stage business ventures and  discouraging investors. Additionally, SEBI’s mandate requiring at least five accredited investors before declaring the first close reverses the conventional practicein angel investing. Traditionally, fund managers identify promising startups first, then attract investors based on those opportunities. The circular imposes the opposite sequence, wherein investors must be secured before any startup is identified, which may slow fund launches, increase opportunity costs and discourage new fund managers. This requirement could also give rise to behavioural distortions where managers bring in passive backers merely to satisfy the regulatory threshold, making compliance formalistic rather than actual. Moreover, regional disparities may intensify as managers outside major hubs such as Bengaluru, Mumbai or Delhi may struggle to attract accredited investors, leading to capital concentration in established business ecosystems.

    Finally, while the reduction in the lock-in period enhances liquidity, it disproportionately benefits institutional syndicates with rapid fund rotation strategies. Thereby placing traditional angel networks whose investment model relies on longer holding periods and sustained founder engagement with the startup at a relative disadvantage as compared to institutional syndicates which are better positioned to benefit from accelerated exit timelines due to their portfolio-based and time bound strategies.

    INTERNATIONAL PARALLELS AND DIVERGENCES

    The statutory framework of the United States (‘U.S.’) and the United Kingdom (‘U.K.)’ have been chosen for comparison as they represent leading common-law jurisdictions with advanced angel investment frameworks that balance investor protection with capital access and whose regulatory models have guided international best practices in early-stage financing and angel investing.

    In the United States early-stage investment is regulated by the US Securities and Exchange Commission,(‘US SEC**’**), particularly Regulation A, Regulation D and Regulation Crowdfunding (‘Reg. CF’). Rule 501 of Regulation D defines an accredited investor, determining eligibility for participation in early-stage investing. Rule 506(b) permits no limit on accredited investors and up to 35 sophisticated non-accredited investors, but prohibits general solicitation, while Rule 506(c) allows general solicitation solely for accredited investors with verified status. Rule 504 limits offerings at $10 million over twelve months and without general solicitation. Regulation A ‘Mini-IPO’ broadens access by allowing non-accredited investors who are subject to investment limits based on income or net worth.

    The 2012 JOBS Act significantly expanded access through Regulation Crowdfunding (‘Reg. CF’) enables startups to solicit investments from non-accredited individuals within statutory caps of a certain income threshold, thereby democratising angel investment and mitigating the concentration of opportunities among only high-net-worth and institutional investors. Reg. CF says that if an investor’s annual income or net worth is below USD107,000 they can invest only a small capped amount in crowd-funding each year. If both are above USD 107,000 they are allowed to invest more but still within a fixed annual limit.

    In the United Kingdom, angel investments fall under the Financial Conduct Authority (‘FCA’) framework, which requires investors to qualify as either high-net-worth or sophisticated investors. The UK distinguishes itself through strong fiscal incentives under the Seed Enterprise Investment Scheme (‘SEIS’) and Enterprise Investment Scheme (‘EIS’), offering income tax relief and loss offset mechanisms to mitigate early-stage risk in investment. Its private placement regime further supports AIFs under controlled conditions, balancing accessibility with investor protection. Viewed against the U.S. and U.K. frameworks, SEBI’s 2025 reforms represent a cautious convergence with global best practices, particularly in investor accreditation, disclosure and governance-led oversight. Similar to the U.S. Regulation D and the UK FCA’s sophisticated investor regime, India’s accreditation model embeds financial competence within regulatory prudence. However, unlike these jurisdictions, India’s approach remains comparatively cautious  lacking fiscal incentives such as the U.K. SEIS/EIS or the participatory openness promoted under the U.S. Reg. CF.

    At national level this cautious approach has been tried to partially offset by recent policy measures aimed at improving the investment climate. The union government announced in the Union Budget 2024 the abolition of  ‘angel tax’ for all classes of investors with effect from the financial year 2025-26, thereby reducing tax-related frictions for early-stage capital formation. In parallel, certain States have introduced sub-national incentives to encourage angel investment. For instance the state of Bihar’s startup policy provides for a ‘success fee’ payable to startups that successfully mobilise investment from registered angel investors. Other states have also adopted broader startup support frameworks through grants, seed funding, incubation support and reimbursement-based incentives, although few have explicitly linked such incentives to angel investment outcomes. These developments suggest that while SEBI’s regulatory architecture remains institutionally cautious, complementary fiscal and state-level interventions are gradually emerging to mitigate the exclusionary effects of accreditation-centric regulation.

    Recent data from the market suggests that the entry level barriers such as mandatory investor accreditation have led to contraction in the angel fund investing. In H2 2025, angel investment rounds dropped nearly 60% to 265 deals, compared with 671 deals a year earlier while funding fell 46% to USD 1.48 billion, from USD 2.73 billion.

    FORWARD OUTLOOK

    The angel funding regime in India comprises diverse investors, including traditional angels and institutional investors with traditional investors more prevalent and institutional ones being at a fast developing stage with a growth of 69% in the last two years, necessitating regulatory frameworks that accommodate their varied investment behaviours, risk tolerances and operational structures. SEBI’s 2025 reforms attempt to align the regime with international practices by enhancing investor protection, transparency and market discipline through mandatory accreditation and flexibility in investment terms. To further optimise these reforms, policy should focus on balancing investor accreditation with inclusivity, incorporating differentiated criteria for underrepresented regions to democratize access to angel funding beyond established business hubs.

    The sharp contraction in angel investment activity observed in H2 2025 highlights the need for dynamic regulatory calibration rather than static compliance thresholds. SEBI could consider a tiered accreditation framework that differentiates between institutional syndicates, experienced legacy angels and first-time investors based on experience, ticket size and risk exposure. In parallel, region-specific pilot relaxations, implemented in coordination with State startup agencies may help address capital access constraints beyond major metropolitan hubs. Periodic post-implementation impact assessments linked to deal flow and regional dispersion would further ensure that investor protection objectives do not inadvertently suppress early-stage capital formation.

    Strengthening capacity-building for emerging angel networks and instituting impact assessments will ensure adaptive and equitable regulation. Additionally introducing fiscal incentives in the tax regime similar to those in the U.K. could incentivize broader participation and retain traditional angels which are important to the startup ecosystem. Though the government scrapped the angel tax and also provides tax exemption under section 54GB of the Income Tax Act, to along with specific relaxations and incentives as introduced by the states, the investors through capital gain exemptions but these exemptions are moderate in nature and limited in scope.  Phased compliance combined with empirical monitoring of fund flows and startup outcomes will support regulatory refinement aligned with India’s diverse entrepreneurial landscape, fostering a resilient and accessible financing environment conducive to innovation a­nd economic growth.

  • From Price Control to Market Discipline: Reading SEBI’s Base Expense Ratio Reform in Comparative Perspective

    From Price Control to Market Discipline: Reading SEBI’s Base Expense Ratio Reform in Comparative Perspective

    BY AADIT SHARMA, SECOND YEAR STUDENT AT RMLNLU, LUCKNOW

    INTRODUCTION

    India’s mutual fund industry has experienced accelerated growth with assets under management increasing from ₹72.2 lakh crores in May 2025 to ₹80.8 lakh crores by November 2025 with retail investors having a larger chunk in the market. It is in this context of rapid market expansion and retail involvement that the Securities and Exchange Board of India’s (‘SEBI’) circular dated 17 December 2025(‘Circular’) introducing the Base Expense Ratio (‘BER’) has been primarily discussed as a numerical or transparency-driven intervention. The earlier Total Expense Ratio (‘TER’) was a single, all-inclusive umbrella cap that bundled together the fund’s core management fees, distributor commissions and operating costs along with various statutory and regulatory levies (such as GST, STT, Stamp Duty and SEBI fees) into one consolidated percentage. The now introduced BER includes unbundling of costs. It states that the BER will only include the base core scheme-level expenses such as management fees, distribution costs and routine administration, while statutory and regulatory levies are excluded and charged separately on actuals. 

    This article argues that the BER framework reflects a measured shift by SEBI from merit-based price control towards disclosure-led market discipline, while consciously stopping short of full deregulation. When viewed in a comparative international context, the reform reflects a cautious alignment with global regulatory trends rather than a blind replication of foreign models.

    FROM BUNDLED CONTROL TO SELECTIVE TRANSPARENCY

    Prior to the circular, mutual fund expenses in India were regulated under a TER framework that bundled discretionary fund management fees with statutory and regulatory levies such as GST, Securities Transaction Tax, exchange fees, and SEBI charges. Although nominally framed as a disclosure-based ceiling, the TER regime functioned substantively as merit regulation because SEBI did not merely mandate disclosure of costs but prescribed binding ceilings on total expenses regulated under SEBI (Mutual Funds) Regulations, 1996. By prescribing category-wise caps on the aggregate chargeable expense, SEBI effectively determined what constituted a ‘reasonable’ cost structure for mutual funds, embedding its regulatory judgement directly into cost limits. Investor protection under this framework was achieved less through competitive pricing or informed choice and more through ex ante regulatory intervention. Even where SEBI permitted limited add-ons such as the additional allowance of up to 0.05 basis points in specified circumstances, including exit load–linked expenses, the underlying architecture remained one of bundled cost control, with statutory pass-through levies obscuring the true pricing of fund management services.

    The BER reform marks a deliberate reconfiguration of this approach. By separating core fund management costs from statutory and regulatory levies, now charged on actuals, SEBI has partially withdrawn from adjudicating the fairness of total expenses. Instead, it has enabled investors to evaluate the pricing of asset management services independently of compulsory charges. This shift represents a recalibration rather than an abandonment of regulatory control: while aggregate cost assessment is displaced in favor of transparency and comparability, SEBI has consciously retained category-wise caps on the base component. This reflects continued skepticism about the disciplining capacity of markets in a retail-dominated ecosystem. However, the reform is not without structural consequences. Although statutory levies are excluded for all funds under the BER framework, the practical benefits of this change are not evenly distributed. Large Asset Management Companies (AMCs)which typically operate close to the regulatory TER ceiling benefit from the removal of mandatory levies such as GST and transaction-related taxes from the capped expense head, as this reclassification restores usable pricing space and cushions margin pressure without requiring any adjustment to headline fees. Smaller AMCs, by contrast, generally price their schemes below regulatory caps and therefore derive limited incremental flexibility from the reform. While the BER framework advances transparency, but does not significantly change competitive conditions, as its practical benefits accrue mainly to AMCs constrained by existing expense ceilings. This outcome underscores the limits of disclosure-led governance in addressing distributive and competitive asymmetries that were previously moderated through aggregate cost controls.

    COMPARATIVE PERSPECTIVE: CONVERGENCE AND DELIBERATE DIVERGENCE

    A.    United States: Disclosure Without Price Ceilings

    In the United States (‘US’) mutual fund regulation is   administered by the Securities and Exchange Commission (‘SEC’) under the Investment Company Act of 1940. It is premised on a combination of disclosure, investor education and procedural safeguards rather than direct regulation of fee levels. The SEC does not impose ceilings on expense ratios; instead funds are required to disclose management fees, distribution expenses (including 12b-1 fees) and operating costs in standardized formats leaving pricing discipline to investor choice and competitive pressures. The SEC requires that mutual funds disclose the expense ratios in key documents such as the prospectus and shareholder reports enabling investors to compare costs across funds.

    By contrast SEBI’s BER framework reflects a more cautious regulatory stance. Although disclosure has been strengthened through cost unbundling, SEBI has retained category-wise caps on base expenses, signaling an institutional judgement that disclosure alone may be insufficient to discipline pricing in a predominantly retail market.

    B. European Union: Transparency with Behavioral Framing

    The European Union’s (‘EU’) regulatory framework particularly under the Packaged retail and insurance-based investment products (PRIIPs), places strong emphasis on cost transparency through mandatory Key Information Documents . The EU regulatory framework is premised on the view that disclosure is effective only when it can be readily understood by retail investors. Accordingly, the PRIIPs regime requires investment costs to be presented in standardized formats and in many instances to be expressed in monetary terms over defined holding periods rather than only as percentages. This approach reflects an explicit regulatory acknowledgement that purely numerical disclosures may not be sufficient to inform investors in decision-making.

    SEBI’s BER framework aligns with the EU’s approach in unbundling costs and enhancing comparability across schemes but differs in its method of disclosure. While the Indian framework improves numerical transparency by separating base expenses from statutory levies it does not mandate behavioral framing or investor-oriented presentation of costs.  The reform enhances visibility of pricing components  but stops short of shaping how investors interpret or process that information.

    Taken together, these comparisons indicate that SEBI’s reform represents hybrid regulatory design. It borrows transparency mechanisms from global best practices while retaining structural controls suited to domestic conditions. The result is neither full convergence with them nor resistance to them but selective adaptation.

     THE LIMITS OF DISCLOSURE AS INVESTOR PROTECTION

    Disclosure-based regulation rests on the assumption that investors are able to read, understand and meaningfully compare cost information across financial products. In practice, this assumption is unevenly satisfied in India’s predominantly  retail driven mutual fund market. Levels of  low financial literacy are entangled with perceived complexity and limited information on investors’ part. As a result, the investors rely on intermediaries, brand reputation or recent returns rather than cost metrics when making investment decisions. In this context, the BER framework may improve the visibility of expense components without necessarily altering investor behavior. While headline base expense figures are now easier to identify, investors may underappreciate the cumulative impact of statutory levies charged separately or may continue to prioritize short-term performance over cost efficiency. As a result, transparency may not translate into effective market discipline. This does not undermine the regulatory rationale of the BER reform, but it highlights an inherent limitation: disclosure can function as a meaningful tool of investor protection only where investors possess the capacity and incentives to use the information disclosed.

    CONCLUSION: MAKING TRANSPARENCY EFFECTIVE

    The introduction of the BER marks a recalibration of mutual fund regulation rather than a completed transition. By unbundling statutory levies from core scheme expenses SEBI has created the conditions for improved cost comparison but transparency alone will not ensure market discipline unless it is operationalized through complementary regulatory practices.

    To realise the BER framework’s potential, post-implementation monitoring must assume central importance. SEBI should systematically track how expense structures evolve under the new regime and whether cost efficiencies are passed on to investors or absorbed within margins and distribution incentives. Periodic, category-wise publication of BER trends could strengthen competitive pressure without additional rulemaking.

    The impact of disclosure also depends on how intermediaries operate. In a market dominated by retail investors, transparency at the scheme level will have limited effect if distributors continue to shape investment decisions without regard to costs. Unless distributor incentives and point-of-sale disclosures reflect BER-related cost differences, investors are unlikely to use this information in practice. In addition, small improvements in how costs are presented such as showing base expenses alongside statutory levies can help investors better understand the total cost of investing, even without introducing formal behavioral mandates.

    Read this way the BER reform is best understood as a foundational step. Its success will depend less on arithmetic recalibration and more on whether transparency is translated into sustained pricing discipline through monitoring, intermediary oversight and usable disclosure.

  • SEBI’s AI Liability Regulation: Accountability and Auditability Concerns

    SEBI’s AI Liability Regulation: Accountability and Auditability Concerns

    AYUSH RAJ AND TANMAY YADAV, FOURTH AND THIRD-YEAR STUDENTS AT GUJARAT NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY, GANDHINAGAR

    INTRODUCTION

    Securities and Exchange Board of India’s (‘SEBI’) February 2025 amendments (Intermediaries (Amendment) Regulations, 2025) inserted Regulation 16C, making any SEBI-regulated entity solely liable for AI/ML tools it uses, whether developed in-house or procured externally. This “sole responsibility” covers data privacy/security, the integrity of artificial intelligence (‘AI’) outputs, and compliance with laws. While this shift rightfully places clear duties on intermediaries, it leaves unaddressed how AI vendors themselves are held to account and how opaque AI systems are audited. In other words, SEBI’s framework robustly binds intermediaries, but contains potential gaps in vendor accountability and system auditability. This critique explores those gaps in light of international standards and practice.

    SCOPE OF REGULATION 16C AND ITS LEGAL FRAMEWORK

    Regulation 16C was notified on Feb 10, 2025 with immediate effect. In substance, it mirrors SEBI’s November 2024 consultation paper: “every person regulated by SEBI that uses AI…shall be solely responsible” for (a) investor data privacy/security, (b) any output from the AI it relies on, and (c) compliance with applicable laws. The rule applies “irrespective of the scale” of AI adoption, meaning even small or third‑party use triggers full liability. SEBI may enforce sanctions under its general powers for any violation.

    This framework operates within SEBI’s established enforcement ecosystem. Violations can trigger the regulator’s full spectrum of penalties under the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992, ranging from monetary sanctions and cease-and-desist orders to suspension of operations. The regulation thus creates a direct enforcement pathway: any AI-related breach of investor protection, data security, or regulatory compliance automatically becomes a SEBI violation with corresponding penalties.

    The legal significance lies in how this shifts risk allocation in the securities ecosystem. Previously, AI-related harms might fall into regulatory grey areas or involve complex questions of vendor versus user responsibility. Regulation 16C eliminates such ambiguity by making intermediaries the single point of accountability, and liability, for all AI deployments in their operations.

    VENDOR-ACCOUNTABILITY GAP

    In practice intermediaries often rely on third-party models or data, but the regulation places all onus on the intermediary, with no parallel duties imposed on the AI vendor. If a supplier’s model has a hidden flaw or violates data norms, SEBI has no direct rulemaking or enforcement channel against that vendor. Instead, the intermediary must shoulder penalties and investor fallout. This one-sided design could dilute accountability: vendors might disclaim liability in contracts, knowing enforcement power lies with SEBI, not with the provider. As a result, there is a regulatory blind spot whenever AI harms stem from vendor error.

    Moreover, industry and global reports warn that relying on a few AI suppliers can create systemic risks. The Bank for International Settlements (BIS) Financial Stability Institute notes that “increased use of third-party services (data providers, AI model providers) could lead to dependency, disruption of critical services and lack of control,” exacerbated by vendor lock-in and market concentration. In other words, heavy dependence on external AI technologies can amplify risk: if one vendor fails, many intermediaries suffer concurrently. The US Treasury likewise highlighted the so‑called “vendor lock-in” problem in financial AI, urging regulators to require vendors to enable easy transitions between competing systems. SEBI’s framework currently lacks any mechanism to counteract lock‑in, such as mandated data or model portability requirements that would allow intermediaries to switch between AI providers without losing critical functionality.

    The recognition of these risks inherently places a responsibility on intermediaries to secure strong contractual controls with AI suppliers. This requires regulated entities to perform thorough due diligence and establish back-to-back arrangements with AI vendors to mitigate risk. Such agreements must include provisions like audit rights, data access, and vendor warranties. However, because explicit legal requirements are absent, the onus falls entirely on intermediaries to negotiate these terms. A failure to do so means SEBI’s liability framework itself provides no enforcement of vendor-side transparency.

    In practice, this gap means an intermediary could satisfy SEBI’s rule on paper (having liability assigned), yet still face failures or disputes with no legal recourse beyond its own contract. The regulator’s approach is asymmetrical: intermediaries have all the incentives to comply, while vendors have none. SEBI’s choice to rely on intermediaries may have been pragmatic, but it is a potential weakness if vendors operate without accountability.

    Consider an AI-driven trading recommendation system supplied by Vendor X. If X’s model generates a flawed recommendation that causes losses, Regulation 16C makes the brokerage (user) fully liable. Yet Vendor X could escape sanction if it sold the software “as is.” Under OECD principles, both the user and the supplier are expected to manage risk cooperatively, but SEBI’s text does not reflect that partnership.

    The foregoing points suggest that SEBI may need to clarify how vendor risks are handled. Potential solutions could include: explicitly requiring intermediaries to contractually compel vendor compliance and audit access, or even extending regulatory standards to cover AI vendors serving Indian markets.

    AUDABILITY AND TRANSPARENCY OF AI SYSTEMS

    A related issue is auditability. Even if intermediaries are liable, regulators must be able to verify how AI systems operate. However, modern AI, especially complex Machine Learning (ML) and generative models, can be “black boxes.” If SEBI cannot inspect the model’s logic or data flows, apportioning entire liability to an intermediary could be problematic.

    Regulators worldwide emphasize that AI systems must be transparent and traceable. The OECD’s AI Principles state that actors should ensure “traceability … of datasets, processes and decisions made during the AI system lifecycle, to enable analysis of the AI system’s outputs and responses to inquiry”. Similarly, a UK financial‑services review emphasizes that auditability “refers to the ability of an AI system to be evaluated and assessed, an AI system should not be a ‘black box’”. In practical terms, auditability means maintaining logs of data inputs, model versions, decision rationales, and changes to algorithms, so that an independent reviewer can reconstruct how a given outcome was reached.

    SEBI’s 16C does not itself mandate audit trails or explain ability measures. It only requires the intermediary to take responsibility for the output. There is no explicit requirement for intermediaries (or their vendors) to preserve model logs or allow regulator inspection. Without such provisions, enforcement of output accuracy or compliance with laws is hampered. For example, if an AI-generated trade signal caused a regulatory breach, SEBI (or a forensic auditor) needs access to the system’s internals to determine why.

    Industry guidance suggests that firms should make auditability a contractual requirement when procuring AI. This could involve specifications on data retention, explainability reports, and independent testing. In the SEBI context, best practice would be for intermediaries to demand from AI providers any data necessary for SEBI audits.

    In essence, two main concerns arise that are closely interconnected. BIS notes that “limits to the explainability of certain complex AI models can result in risk management challenges, as well as lesser … supervisory insight into the build-up of systemic risks“. If AI outcomes cannot be easily audited, SEBI risks being unable to verify compliance, and lacking explicit audit provisions, regulators and investors may lack confidence in the system’s integrity. Additionally, without mandated audit provisions, firms may neglect this in vendor agreements, though the operational reality for firms should be to include audit clauses and perform due diligence. SEBI should consider guidance or rules requiring regulated entities to ensure audit rights over AI models, just as banks must under banking third-party rules.

    CONCLUSION

    SEBI’s insertion of Regulation 16C is a welcome and necessary move: it recognises that AI is now mission-critical in securities markets and rightly puts regulated entities on notice that AI outputs and data practices are not outside regulatory reach. Yet the regulation, as drafted, addresses only one side of a multi-party governance problem. Making intermediaries the default legal backstop without parallel obligations on vendors or explicit auditability requirements risks creating enforcement illusions, liability on paper that is difficult to verify or remediate in practice.

    To make the policy effective, SEBI should close the symmetry gap between users and suppliers and make AI systems practically observable. At a minimum this means clarifying the standard of liability, requiring intermediaries to retain model and data audit trails, and mandating contractual safeguards (audit rights, model-version logs, notification of material model changes, and portability requirements). If SEBI couples its clear allocation of responsibility with enforceable transparency and vendor-accountability mechanisms, it will have moved beyond a paper rule to a practical framework that preserves market integrity while enabling safe AI adoption.

  • SEBI’s Rights Issue Amendments 2025: Streamlined Issues or Regulatory Labyrinth?

    SEBI’s Rights Issue Amendments 2025: Streamlined Issues or Regulatory Labyrinth?

    BY Devashish Bhattacharyya and Sadhika Gupta, FOURth- Year STUDENT AT Amity Law School, Noida
    Introduction

    A Rights Issue enables companies to offer existing shareholders the opportunity to purchase additional shares directly from the company at a price lower than the prevailing market rate. According to the Securities and Exchange Board of India (‘SEBI’) Annual Report, the number of companies that raised funds through rights issues declined from 73 in 2022–23 to over 67 in 2023–24. It was observed that numerous companies opted for alternative fundraising methods, as the existing Rights Issue process was considered protracted.

    SEBI, in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 11 and Section 11A of the SEBI Act, 1992, read with Regulation 299 of the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Issue of Capital and Disclosure Requirements) Regulations, 2018 (‘SEBI ICDR Regulations’), notified amendments under the framework of Rights Issue on 8 March 2025. The purpose of these Amendments was to improve the efficacy of capital raising by companies, as outlined in the Consultation Paper published by SEBI on 20 August 2024.

    Key Amendments in Rights Issue

    I. No more fast track distinction

    Pursuant to the Rights Issue Amendment 2025, regulations for Rights Issue now apply to all issuers regardless of their size. There is no longer a distinction in the documentation required for Rights Issue as SEBI has removed fast track eligibility requirements.

    II. SEBI Drops DLoF Requirement

    Draft Letter of Offer (‘DLoF’) and Letter of Offer (‘LoF’) must contain material disclosures to allow applicants to make a well-informed decision.  Since the issuer is listed, much of the DLoF/LoF information is already public, causing unnecessary duplication. Examining the aforesaid concerns, SEBI, through its recent amendments discontinued the requirement of filing DLoF with SEBI for the issuance of its observation.

    III. Disclosure Requirements under LoF

    Pursuant to the Recent Rights Issue Amendments 2025 , now an issuer undertaking a Rights Issue is required to comply with the updated Part-B of Schedule VI of the SEBI ICDR Regulations, eliminating the differentiation of Part B and Part B-1 of Schedule VI.

    IV. Removal of Lead Managers

    SEBI has lifted the necessity for the appointment of Lead Managers, i.e., Merchant Bankers (‘MBs’), in a Rights Issue process under the Recent ICDR Amendments 2025. The SEBI ICDR Regulations fail to define timelines for the completion of the due diligence and filing of DLoF/ LoF resulting in a prolonged duration.

    These ancillary activities that MBs perform are generic in nature and can be performed by the Issuer, Market Infrastructure Institutions, and Registrar and Transfer Agents. Therefore, the elimination of MBs will have a significant impact in expediting the issue process.

    V. Allotment to Specific Investors

    SEBI has promoted the allocation of securities through the renouncement of Rights Entitlements (‘Res’) to specific investors outside the promoters and promoter group under the Rights Issue Amendments 2025.

    A promoter must renounce REs within the promoter group. The Rights Issue Amendment 2025 eases these restrictions on the renunciation of REs to promoters and promoter group, allowing issuers to onboard specific investors as shareholders by inserting Regulation 77B.

    VI. Revised timeline for Rights Issues

    SEBI published a circular on 11 March 2025 requiring the completion of a Rights Issue within 23 days. This revised timeline is specified vide Regulation 85.

    The new timeline has been explained below:

    ActivityTimelines
    1st board meeting for approval of rights issueT
    Notice for 2nd board meeting to fix record date, price, entitlement ratio, etc.T* (Subject to Board’s/ shareholders’ approval)
    Application by the issuer for seeking in-principle approval along with filing of DLoF with stock exchangesT+1
    Receipt of in-principle approval from Stock ExchangesT+3
    2nd Board meeting for fixing record date, price, entitlement ratio etc.T+4
    Filing of LoF with Stock Exchanges and SEBIT+5–T+7
    Record DateT+8
    Receipt of BENPOS on Record date (at the end of the day)T+8
    Credit of REsT+9
    Dispatch/Communication to the shareholders of LoFT+10
    Publication of advertisement for completion of dispatchT+11
    Publication of advertisement for disclosing details of specific investor(s)T+11
    Issue opening and commencement of trading in REs (Issue to be kept open for minimum 7 days as per Companies Act, 2013)T+14
    Validation of BidsT+14–T+20
    Closure of REs trading (3 working days prior to issue closure date)T+17
    Closure of off-market transfer of REsT+19
    Issue closureT+20

    *If the Issuer is making a rights issue of convertible debt instruments, the notice for the 2nd board meeting to fix record date, price, entitlement ratio, etc. will be issued on the approval date of the shareholders, with the timeline adjusted accordingly.

    Rights Issue Amendments 2025: What SEBI Forgot to Fix?

    I. Erosion of Shareholder Democracy

    A listed company shall uphold a minimum public shareholding (‘MPS’) of 25% under Rule 19A of the Securities Contracts (Regulation) Rules, 1957. Prior to the Rights Issue Amendments, promoters and promoter group had restrictions to renounce rights within the promoter group, except for adherence to MPS requirements. The recent amendments have lifted this restriction. The promoters may renounce their rights in both manners without restrictions to related parties, friendly investors, strategic allies, etc. Such a specific investor may seem to be a public shareholder on paper, yet they effectively align their voting and acts with the interests of promoters. This creates a grey zone indirectly enhancing the control of promoters without formally increasing their share ownership. Since, SEBI has relaxed restrictions on the renunciation of REs; it shall consider introducing a cap limit on promoter renunciations in favour of specific investors. This would help prevent over-concentration of control, thereby safeguarding the interests and voice of public shareholders.

    II. Circumventing Takeover Code Intent

    Promoters are permitted to renounce their REs in favour of specific investors and allow issuers to allot unsubscribed shares to them, as per the Rights Issue Amendments 2025. This creates a vulnerability in which a specific investor can acquire a substantial stake, potentially exceeding 25%, without triggering an open offer under Regulation 3(1) of the SEBI Takeover Regulations. The exemption, which typically pertains to Rights Issues, is not applicable in this instance due to the following reasons: the acquisition is not pro-rata, it is the result of renunciation by another party, and it is not equally accessible to all shareholders. Consequently, the spirit of the SEBI Takeover Regulations may be violated if control is transferred stealthily without providing public shareholders with an exit opportunity. The Rights Issue Amendments 2025 facilitate backdoor takeovers and undermine investor protection unless SEBI clarifies that such selective acquisitions elicit open offer obligations. SEBI may consider introducing  a ceiling for acquisitions through rights issue renunciations (for e.g., 5% maximum through RE-based allotment unless open offer is made). This would prevent backdoor takeover route.

    III. Unmasking Preferential Allotment under the Veil of Rights Issue

      Under the SEBI Rights Issue Amendments 2025, companies conducting a rights issue can allocate the REs to specific investors rather than existing shareholders, provided that their identities are disclosed at least two working days prior to the opening of the issue, thereby contravening Regulation 90(2) of the SEBI ICDR Regulations. Under the veil of a rights issue, issuers can circumvent the more stringent and transparent process of preferential issue under Chapter V of SEBI ICDR Regulations by directing REs to specific investors. Further, the SEBI ICDR Regulations lack a framework that mandates issuers to justify why such specific investors were chosen.

      Pricing formula and lock-in restrictions applicable to preferential issue under Regulations 164 and 167 of the SEBI ICDR Regulations, respectively, should be applied to all discretionary allotments of REs. Any such allotment exceeding a defined threshold should require prior approval through a special resolution as specified under Section 62(1)(c) of the Companies Act, 2013. In addition, the SEBI ICDR Regulations should set a framework obligating issuers to disclose the rationale for selecting any specific investor.

      IV. Mandatory Lock-in Period for Specific Investors

        While the SEBI’s proposed framework on allotment of specific investors allows promoters to renounce their REs in favour of specific investors, and issuers to allot unsubscribed portions of the rights issue to such investors, it fails to mandate a lock-in period for the shares so allotted. Short-term arbitrageurs or entities allied with insiders may exploit this lacuna by acquiring shares at a discount and subsequently selling them in the secondary market to realise quick profits without a long-term obligation to the issuer.

        To prevent speculative arbitrage and ensure regulatory parity with preferential allotment norms, it is suggested that SEBI implement a mandatory 6-12 months lock-in on equity shares allotted to selective investors through promoter renunciation or unsubscribed portions in rights issues.

        Conclusion

        The Rights Issue Amendments 2025 mark a progressive shift in streamlining the Rights Issue process, which ameliorates procedural challenges and compliance requirements. However, the amendments also open a Pandora’s box of regulatory blind spots. What was once a pro-rata, democratic mechanism of capital raising now runs the risk of becoming a “Preferential Allotment in Disguise.” The unrestricted renunciation of REs to specific investors, the absence of a mandatory lock-in, and the circumvention of the Takeover Code’s spirit collectively enable promoters to strengthen their control, potentially sidelining public shareholders and eroding market fairness. While SEBI has turbocharged the rights issue vehicle, it needs to make sure no one drives it off-road so that it remains equitable and transparent.

      1. Inside the SEBI Intervention: Anatomy of Jane Street’s Derivatives Manipulation

        Inside the SEBI Intervention: Anatomy of Jane Street’s Derivatives Manipulation

        BY HIMANSHU YADAV, THIRD-YEAR STUDENT AT MNLU, CS.

        INTRODUCTION

        India is the world’s largest derivatives market, accounting for nearly 60% of the 7.3 billion equity derivatives traded globally in April, according to the Futures Industry Association. Amid growing concerns over market integrity and transparency, the Securities Exchange Board of India (‘SEBI’) took decisive action to protect the interests of investors. On July 3, 2025, the SEBI banned Jane Street from Indian markets for manipulating indices. The US-based global proprietary trading firm, Jane Street Group, operating in 45 countries with over 2,600 employees, is banned from trading until further notice. The order marks a significant regulatory action against market manipulation. Jane Street reportedly earned ₹36,502 crore through aggressive trading strategies, facing ₹4,843 crore in impounded unlawful gains.

        In April 2024, based on prima facie evidence, SEBI initiated an investigation against entities of Jane Street for alleged market abuse. The firm’s activities were found to have violated SEBI’s Prohibition of Fraudulent and Unfair Trade Practices relating to Securities Market Regulations, 2003 (‘PFUTP’). The further investigation by SEBI led to findings that on the weekly index options expiry dates, the firm was holding extremely large positions in cash equivalents in the Future and Options (‘F&O’) market. Based on prima facie evidence, the SEBI issued a caution letter to Jane Street and its related entities.

        The activity of Jane Street, mostly done on expiry dates, allowed the firm to influence the settlement outcomes. On expiry day, the closing price of an index (like Nifty or Bank Nifty) determines the final settlement value of all outstanding options and futures contracts. Even a small change in the index’s closing value can lead to huge profits or losses, especially when large positions are involved. Due to the large position held by Jane Street, it allowed the firm to easily conceive the motive.

        SEBI held Jane Street accountable for the two-phase strategy on January 17, 2024 intensive morning buying of Bank Nifty stocks/futures and simultaneous bearish options positioning, followed by aggressive afternoon sell-off to push the index lower at close. These trades directly influenced Bank Nifty’s settlement value, disproportionately benefiting Jane Street’s option positions at the expense of others.

        HOW JANE STREET’S JANUARY 17, 2024 TRADES MANIPULATED THE BANK NIFTY INDEX ON EXPIRY DAY

        The SEBI analysed the top 30 profitable trades of Jane Street, out of which 17 days were shortlisted for detailed analysis concerning derivative expiry day trades. The critical analysis of these days resulted in 15 days with the same deployed strategy for manipulation of indexes, which can also be termed as “Intraday Index Manipulation Strategy”.

        The manipulation strategy was deployed in such a manner that JS Group held a large position. In Patch-I, the net purchases of JS group were INR 4,370.03 crore in cash and future markets. As the purchases in the Index stocks in the morning were executed, it raised the prices of Bank Nifty constituents and the index. The purchases were so high, it made the index move upward. Now that the index moved upward, the put option would become cheaper and the call option would become expensive. This sudden surge gives a misleading signal of bullish interest in Bank Nifty. Based on this delusion of a bullish trend, the JS group purchased the put positions at a cheaper rate quietly. In Patch-II, the JS group sells all the futures positions that were purchased in Patch-I, as the volume bought and sold was so large that it resulted in pushing the index downward. Now, the premium of put prices rises, and there is a drop in the value of call options. This sole movement by JS group entities misled the retail investors, resulting in a loss booked by the retailers, as they were the single largest net buyer across Bank Nifty during this patch. This price upward movement reflects that the Jane Street group was creating an upward pressure during Patch-I.

        EXTENDED MARKING THE CLOSE STRATEGY ADOPTED BY JANE STREET

        On July 10, 2024, the entity was again held liable for “Extended Marking the Close” manipulation. The tactic used under this strategy is to aggressively give a sell or purchase order in the last trading session, upon which the final closing price of a security or index is reflected.  On the last day of trading (called expiry day), the final value of an index like Bank Nifty is very important because all option contracts are settled based on that final number, known as the closing price. Jane Street had placed bets that the market would fall (these are called short options positions, like buying puts or selling calls). If the market closed lower, they would make more money. So, in the last hour of trading on July 10, 2024, Jane Street sold a lot of stocks and index futures very quickly. This sudden selling pushed the Bank Nifty index down, even if only slightly. Even a small drop in the index at the end of the day can increase the value of their bets and bring in huge profits. This tactic is called “marking the close” It means influencing the final price at which the market closes to benefit your trades.

        THE LEGAL PERSPECTIVE ON THE STRATEGIES ADOPTED BY JS GROUP

        In trading, manipulating the market effectively creates and uses monopolistic power.  Order-Based Manipulation (‘OBM’) by high-frequency  traders have several negative effects, such as heightened price volatility in both frequency and size, unfair and monopolistic profit from manipulated investors’ losses and instability potential.

        The JS group and its entities are allegedly held liable for the Intra-day Index Manipulation strategy and Extended Marking the Close strategy. Regulations 3 and 4 of the SEBI PFUTP Regulations, 2003, prohibit any act that manipulates the price of securities or misleads investors. The JS Group was held liable under section 12A(a), (b) and(c) of the SEBI Act, 1992; regulations 3(a), (b), (c), (d), 4(1) and 4(2)(a) and (e) of the PFUTP Regulations, 2003.

        The SEBI, which acts as a market watchdog, is well within its jurisdiction to initiate criminal proceedings as well as impose penalties against entities of the JS group under Section 24 of the SEBI Act, 1992. Section 11 of the SEBI Act 1992 empowers SEBI “to protect the interests of investors in securities and to promote the development of, and to regulate, the securities market.” Section 11B – Directions by SEBI gives SEBI quasi-judicial powers to issue directions “in the interest of investors or the securities market,” even in the absence of specific wrongdoing. It allows the regulator to: Restrain trading activities, modify operational practices, and Direct intermediaries and related entities to cease and desist from certain actions.

        Further, the defence of arbitrage cannot be validly exercised by Jane Street. The activity incurred by Jane Street cannot be termed as a traditional arbitrage practice, as arbitrage means taking advantage of existing price gaps naturally. Jane Street was not only finding pricing gaps and making fair profits rather Jane Street was also manipulating the pricing of some index options and futures to change the market in a way that isn’t normal arbitrage.

        Jane Street artificial price moves through high-frequency, manipulative trading to mislead the market.

        WAY FORWARD

        The Jane Street ‘Soft Close’ Strategy and SEBI’s delayed discovery of such transactions highlight the extent to which a system can lag in evaluating manipulative actions by traders at machine speed. It was actually in 2023, the U.S. Millennium, a prominent global hedge fund, filed a lawsuit against Jane Street after poaching its employees. These employees disclosed a previously covert Indian market strategy centred around artificially influencing expiry-day closing prices to benefit Jane Street’s derivatives positions, a tactic akin to a “soft close.” Only upon the filing of such a suit, the SEBI launched a full-fledged investigation, and the regulator analyzed the 3-year expiry trades of the JS Group. The SEBI’s long-term sustained efforts over the years to safeguard the retail investors from losing their money, at this juncture, a much more advanced regulatory scrutiny is required. Jane Street, being a high-frequency trader, the tactics deployed by such an entity shock the market and have a grave impact on the retail investors. High-frequency Trading (‘HFT’),  has the potential to bring the most worrisome instability to the market. The Flash Crash 2010, which was triggered by automated selling orders worsened by HFT, is one of the most severe events that disrupted market stability. Going forward, SEBI must adopt a more agile and tech-driven oversight model, capable of detecting unusual volumes, timing-based trade clusters, and order book imbalances in real time. It should also consider making a special HFT Surveillance Unit that works with AI-powered systems. This isn’t to replace human judgment, but to help with pattern recognition and rapidly identify anything that doesn’t seem right.

        CONCLUSION

        The regulator recently released statistics showing that the number of retail investors in the derivatives market is close to 10 million. They lost 1.05 trillion rupees ($11.6 billion, £8.6 billion) in FY25, compared to 750 billion rupees in FY24. Last year, the average loss for a retail investor was 110,069 rupees ($1,283; £958). Due to such manipulative trading activities, it is the retail derivative traders who face a tight corner situation and end up losing their money.  SEBI, in its report published on July 7, 2025, highlights that 91% of retail investors lose their money in the Equity Derivative Segment (‘EDS’) The regulatory check and stricter analysis on the trading session are the need of the hour. But on the contrary, cracking down on the practice of such a global level player is what SEBI should be praised for. More dedicated and faster technology should be adopted by SEBI to carry out such an investigation in a swifter manner. 

      2. From Approval To Autonomy: SEBI’s New Framework For Stock Brokers In GIFT-IFSC

        From Approval To Autonomy: SEBI’s New Framework For Stock Brokers In GIFT-IFSC

        BY Vishvajeet Rastogi, SECOND-YEAR STUDENT AT CNLU, PATNA
        INTRODUCTION

        The Gujarat International Finance Tec-City – International Financial Services Centre (‘GIFT-IFSC’) is India’s ambitious bid to develop a globally competitive financial centre catering to international markets and investors. A major regulator of securities markets in India, the Securities and Exchange Board of India (‘SEBI’) has inducted significant regulatory reform to ease the operational environment for stock brokers who seek to operate in GIFT-IFSC.

        On May 2, 2025, SEBI released a circular titled “Measure for Ease of Doing Business – Facilitation to SEBI registered Stock Brokers to undertake securities market related activities in Gujarat International Finance Tech-city – International Financial Services Centre (GIFT-IFSC) under a Separate Business Unit” (‘SEBI Circular’) abolishing pre-approval for stock brokers for conducting securities market activities in GIFT-IFSC and enabling them to conduct such activities through a Separate Business Unit (‘SBU’) of their existing structure. This transition from a strict approval regime approach to an autonomous regime is likely to promote ease of doing business and support the internationalization of India’s financial services.

        This article assesses the salient provisions of the SEBI Circular, discusses its regulatory and legal implications, and reviews the opportunities and issues it throws for stock brokers’ foray into the GIFT-IFSC.

        KEY CHANGES

        The SEBI Circular brings in major reforms in order to ease the functioning of stock brokers in the GIFT-IFSC. It does away with the mandatory condition under which stock brokers have to take SEBI’s advance approval for starting securities market activities in GIFT-IFSC. The reform eases the entrance process and enables brokers to get started sooner with less procedural complexity.

        `In place of the previous approval mechanism, stockbrokers can now conduct activities through an SBU within their existing organizational structure. An SBU can be created in the form of an exclusive branch or division, providing more flexibility in organizing the business of brokers. Although the SEBI Circular encourages the utilization of SBUs, it also leaves the choice for stockbrokers to carry on through subsidiaries or through joint ventures if desired. Similarly, brokers who have already established subsidiaries or joint ventures in the GIFT-IFSC can choose to wind them down and bring their activities under an SBU if it aligns with their business strategy.

        The SEBI Circular also defines regulatory contours by bringing the operations of the SBU under the ambit of the International Financial Services Centres Authority (‘IFSCA’). That is to say that policy issues, risk management, grievance redressal, and enforcement in relation to the SBU will be regulated by IFSCA rules, not SEBI. SEBI’s jurisdiction will continue to extend only to Indian securities market activities. For the purposes of clear demarcation between the two activities, the SEBI Circular requires activities of the SBU to be segregated from the stockbrokers’ domestic activities at arm’s length. This requires maintaining separate accounts and operational autonomy to prevent regulatory overlap.

        Financial segregation has also come with the condition that the net worth of the SBU must be held separate from the stock broking entity dealing in the Indian market. The net worth of the stockbroker for Indian operations will be computed excluding the finances of the SBU, and the SBU itself will have to fulfil capital adequacy norms as per IFSCA’s regulatory guidelines.

        Finally, the SEBI Circular makes it clear that the investors dealing with the SBU will not be subject to SEBI’s grievance redressal platforms like the SEBI’s Complaints Redress System (‘SCORES’) or the Investor Protection Fund operated by the stock exchanges. Their protections and redressal of grievances will instead come under the framework of the regulation of IFSCA, strengthening the operational autonomy of the unit in the GIFT-IFSC.

        Together, these amendments constitute a policy shift towards regulatory clarity and increased operational autonomy with well-codified governance norms to allow stock brokers to successfully increase their presence in international financial services.

        Regulatory Rationale and Objective

          This SEBI Circular outlines the new strategy to promote operational efficiency and regulatory clarity for the stock brokers in the GIFT-IFSC. Removal of the requirement of prior approval from SEBI enhances the regulatory ease of doing business by reducing barriers to entry for brokers to conduct cross-border securities activities. This reform aligns with the larger vision of transforming the GIFT-IFSC into an internationally competitive financial centre at the global stage with international capital and global-level market players.

          The setting up of SBUs in existing stock-broking establishments brings about an objective definitional and regulatory distinction between transactions in domestic business and activities under the jurisdiction of GIFT-IFSC. Segregation does away with regulatory overlap, demarcates the areas of oversight between SEBI and the IFSCA, and protects against conflict of interest.

          Segregation requirements for finances as well as separate net worth requirements and accounting methods further specify that risk and obligation are properly segmented. These requirements increase transparency and the integrity of domestic and foreign market segments.

          In addition to this, the SEBI Circular specifically defines the extent of investor protection and vests grievance redressal and resolution of disputes in the jurisdiction of IFSCA and thereby strengthens jurisdictional certainty.

          Legal and Compliance Implication

          This SEBI Circular represents an important jurisdiction shift for stock brokers who are present in the GIFT-IFSC from SEBI to the IFSCA for business transacted through SBUs. This requires strict adherence to the dual regime of regulation where domestic business continues to be under SEBI’s jurisdiction while SBUs in the GIFT-IFSC operate in terms of IFSCA’s separate regulatory regime.

          The keystone of such a structure is the rigorous ring-fencing requirement with financial, operational, and legal separation between domestic and GIFT-IFSC activities of the stock broker. Financial ring-fencing implies separate accounts maintained by the SBU and separate net worth standards as governed by IFSCA to have clear delineation of assets and liabilities. Operationally, the SEBI Circular stipulates separation of SBUs through arm’s-length management to avoid inappropriately influencing control and mixing of resources. Legally too, separation enforces jurisdiction-related divisions, reduces regulatory arbitrage, and limits system risk.

          This regulatory framework replicates international best practices in influential global financial hubs like the Dubai International Financial Centre (‘DIFC’) and Singapore Monetary Authority-regulated centres. These jurisdictions all prioritize unambiguous jurisdictional demarcation, independence in operations of international financial institutions as well as strong investor protection systems, which support integrity in the marketplace and investor confidence.

          Emulating such principles, SEBI’s SEBI Circular establishes GIFT-IFSC as a compliant and competitive global hub, weighing deregulation against essential safeguards to preserve financial stability and regulatory oversight.

          Opportunities and Challenges for Stock Brokers

          These new guidelines offer stock brokers some strategic options. Most significant among them is greater operational independence, enabling brokers to carry out international securities activities in the GIFT-IFSC with the help of SBUs without obtaining SEBI approval in advance. This independence allows for quicker entry into the market, where brokers can leverage new opportunities in the international markets more easily. Also, carrying out business in the GIFT-IFSC exposes brokers to more international customers and varied financial products, largely opening them up to an extended marketplace and new revenue streams.

          But these advantages carry built-in difficulties. Dual regulatory compliances present a nuanced challenge in that stock brokers have to manage the regulatory conditions of SEBI for their Indian operations as well as IFSCA for their activities in the GIFT-IFSC. This duplicity requires evolved compliance structures and internal controls for maintaining conformity with separate law regimes. In addition, the investor dealing with SBUs will not be able to enjoy SEBI’s prescribed grievance redressals like SCORES, which can potentially create investor protection and redress concerns.

          Internally, stock brokers also need to have strict ring-fencing of resources and finances to have clean separation of both domestic and international operations. Proper management of the segregation is important in order not to have operational overlaps, to protect financial integrity, and to guard against commingling of assets and liabilities. While the SEBI Circular paves the way for internationalization and growth, it also necessitates enhancing the risk management capacities and the regulatory infrastructure of the stock brokers.

          Conclusion and Way Forward

          The SEBI Circular is a forward-looking step towards increasing the regulatory independence of stock brokers in GIFT-IFSC by doing away with previous approval systems and permitting activities in terms of SBUs. The reform not just makes it easier to enter the market but also strengthens India’s vision of promoting GIFT-IFSC as an international financial centre powered by well-defined regulatory lines between SEBI and IFSCA.

          While it introduces new opportunities, it also poses issues like managing the dual regulatory compliances and lack of SEBI’s grievance redressals for investors transacting with SBUs. The author suggests that the stock brokers need to pre-emptively enhance their systems of compliance and risk management in order to be able to manage such complexity. In addition, having closer collaboration between SEBI and IFSCA on regulatory harmonization, particularly investor protection, would increase the confidence of the markets. Proper communication to the investor about the grievance mechanism applicable under IFSCA is also needed to inculcate trust and transparency in the new ecosystem. Using these steps, stock brokers can reap the maximum advantage of this regulatory change and promote sustained development and international integration of India’s financial markets.

        1. Navigating RBI’s Revised Framework for Downstream Investments by FOCCs

          Navigating RBI’s Revised Framework for Downstream Investments by FOCCs

          BY PURNIMA RATHI, FOURTH-YEAR STUDENT AT SYBIOSIS LAW SCHOOL, PUNE

          On January 20, 2025, the Reserve Bank of India (‘RBI’) released a comprehensive revision of the Master Direction on Foreign Investment in India (‘Master Direction’). The update represents a landmark regulatory revision, particularly for Foreign Owned and/or Controlled Companies (‘FOCCs’) pursuing downstream investments. The updated Master Direction has attempted to resolve a number of ambiguities, align regulatory treatment with the Consolidated Foreign Direct Investment (‘FDI’) Policy, 2020 and the Foreign Exchange (Non- Debt_ Instruments) Rules, 2019 (‘NDI Rules’) and thus, stream lining the compliance requirements for both investors and companies.

          The blog shall analyse key regulatory changes made through the Master Direction and its effects on downstream investments made by FOCCs. This analysis is made by comparing the recent update to the earlier versions of the Master Direction.

          WHAT ARE FOCCs AND DOWNSTREAM INVESTMENTS ?

          To understand the significance of the Master Direction, it is first necessary to understand the meaning and the context in which FOCCs and downstream investments operate. A FOCC is defined in the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 (‘FEMA’) and the NDI Rules as an Indian entity that is:

          •  Owned by non-resident entities (more than 50% shareholding); or

          •  Controlled by non-residents (in the sense of a non-resident entity or person is empowered to appoint a majority of directors or is empowered to influence decisions which are deemed to be strategic business decisions).

          Downstream investment is defined collectively, in this context, as an investment in capital instruments (equity shares, compulsorily convertible preference shares, etc.) made by said FOCC in another Indian entity. It is essentially an investment made by a company already partly or wholly owned by foreign investors, into another Indian entity.

          Analysis of Key Changes

          The updated Master Direction has important amendments which are aimed at reducing compliance complexities, providing legal clarity, and allowing flexibility with transaction structures. Analysed below are the key revisions from the Master Direction:

          1. Consistency with General FDI Norms

          The most important change is the explicit consistency of downstream investments by FOCCs with general FDI norms. Downstream investments are treated as a different investment category and require separate compliance obligations.  However, now it requires that FOCCs must comply with the same entry routes (automatic or government), sectoral restrictions, price restrictions, and reporting requirements as any direct foreign investment investor. The guiding principle of “what cannot be done directly, shall not be done indirectly” has the intention to place downstream investments on an equal level with FDI.

          This is particularly advantageous in sectors where the automatic route is available and removes unnecessary bureaucratic hurdles. For example, if a FOCC is investing in an Indian startup that provides services to the technology sector, they may now invest and treat it the same as a direct foreign investment provided that the sector cap and conditions are adhered to.

          2. Share Swaps Approved

          Another important change is the recognition of share swap transactions by FOCCs. Before the recent change, it was unclear whether share swaps were permitted for FOCCs at all, and companies tended to either seek informal clarifications or err on the side of caution.

          The updated direction explicitly provides that FOCCs can issue or acquire shares in lieu of shares of another company (either Indian or foreign) subject to pricing guidelines and sectoral limitations. This is an important facilitative measure for cross-border mergers, joint ventures, and acquisition deals where share swaps are the predominant form of consideration.

          This reform enhances transactional flexibility, encourages capital growth and will reduce friction in structuring deals between Indian FOCCs and foreign entities, thereby promoting greater integration with global capital market. 

          3. Permissibility of Deferred Consideration

          The RBI now formally recognizes deferred consideration structures such as milestone-triggered payments, escrows, or holdbacks. However, they are still governed by the ’18-25 Rule’, which allows 25% of total consideration to be deferred, which must be paid within 18 months of execution of the agreement. This represents a pragmatic acceptance of the commercial acknowledgment that not all transactions are settled upon completion.

          RBI shall have to give additional clarifications as the Master Direction still does not specify the extent to which provisions are applicable to downstream investments in comparison to the FDIs.

          4. Limitations on the Utilisation of Domestic Borrowings

          In an effort to safeguard the integrity of foreign investment channels and to deter round-tripping, or indirect foreign investment through Indian funds, the RBI continues to restrict FOCCs from utilising domestic borrowings for downstream investment. This implies that FOCCs can only downstream invest with foreign funds introduced through equity investments or through internal accruals. The restriction aims that downstream investments are made through genuine foreign capital introduced in the country through abroad, rather than through domestic borrowings.

          Practically this means that if the FOCC receives a USD 5 million injection from the parent organization abroad, then they can utilize such funds for downstream investment, but not if they were to borrow the same amount in INR through a loan from an Indian financial institution. This maintains investor confidence and enhances transparency in capital flows.

          5. Modified Pricing Guidelines for Transactions

          The revised framework reiterated pricing guidelines in accordance with the different types of company:

          •  For listed companies: The pricing must comply with the Securities and Exchange Board of India (‘SEBI’) guidelines,

          •  By unlisted companies: The price cannot be lower than the fair market value determined by internationally accepted pricing methodologies.

          Additionally, in all rights issues involving non-residents, if the allotment is greater than the investor’s allotted entitlement, price has to comply with these guidelines. In this case, the rights issue would protect minority shareholders and mitigate the dilution that would occur by no listings from unlisted companies.

          6. Reporting and Compliance via Form DI

          An excellent innovation is the new compliance requirement of filing on Form DI within 30 days of the date an Indian company becomes a FOCC or makes a downstream investment. This will assist the RBI in maintaining regulatory visibility and better tracking of foreign investment in India. Companies will have to implement stricter internal compliance mechanisms and timely reporting as failure to do so could result in penalties under FEMA. The RBI’s emphasis on transparency reflects a continuing trend toward digitization and live reporting of capital flows by Indian regulators.

          7. Clearer Application of the Reporting Forms (FC-GPR, FC-TRS, DI)

          In addition, the RBI has further clarified the documents to use the following forms:

          • Form FC-GPR: is for reporting the issuance of shares by an Indian entity to a FOCC. • Form FC-TRS: is for any transfer of shares involving FOCC as the non-resident and between residents and non-residents.

          • Form DI: is for downstream investments made by FOCC into any other Indian entity.

          This clarity will help eliminate confusion around these procedures and synchronize the reporting regime of the RBI with the reporting systems of the Ministry of Corporate Affairs (‘MCA’) and SEBI. FOCC should implement strong internal controls to monitor and track when these filings will become due.

          8. Classification of FOCCs based on Share Movement

          The new regulations will also provide clarity on how the status of a FOCC will influence a regulatory classification. Specifically:

          •  if a FOCC receives shares from an Indian entity, it will be treated as a ‘Person Resident Outside India’; and

          •  if it transfers shares to an Indian entity, it will be deemed to be domestic in nature but needs to comply with the repatriation norms.

          These classifications have an important bearing on the route and pricing of transactions especially in exits or complex internal restructuring transactions. Through these classifications, RBI intends to clarify the confusion from mischaracterizing transactions and reducing risk for the investors in the event of any enforcement action.

          Conclusion

          The amendments to the Master Direction represent a measured and thoughtful change in the foreign investment regulatory framework in India. The RBI has set the tone in favour of enabling policy predictability and investor confidence by clarifying FOCC structures’ downstream investment norms to be consistent with FDI, allowing for more sophisticated structures like share-swap transactions and deferred consideration, and imposing effective operational compliance requirements. Going forward, these refinements have set the foundation for deeper capital integration and increased investor trust in India’s FDI regime.

        2. Bridging Borders: SCRR Amendment 2024 and India’s Gateway to Global Capital

          Bridging Borders: SCRR Amendment 2024 and India’s Gateway to Global Capital

          BY MANAV PAMNANI AND SHOURYA SHARMA, THIRD-YEAR STUDENTS AT NALSAR HYDERABAD AND JINDAL GLOBAL LAW SCHOOL, SONIPAT

          INTRODUCTION

          The Department of Economic Affairs, Ministry of Finance (‘MoF’), has recently amended the Securities Contracts Regulation Rules, 1957 (‘SCRR’). This Amendment attempts to make it easier for Indian public companies to list their equity shares within International Financial Service Centres (‘IFSCs’) such as the Gujarat International Finance Tec-City (‘GIFT City’), under the framework of Direct Listing of Equity Shares Scheme and the Companies (Listing of Equity Shares in Permissible Jurisdictions) Rules, 2024. One of the significant changes under the Amendment is the reduction of minimum public shareholding thresholds from 25% to 10% for listing made in IFSCs, making international listings more accessible, especially for start-ups and technology-driven enterprises. This move mirrors the government’s broader commitment towards placing India among the world’s competitive investment-friendly destinations and financial hives. This article attempts to analyse the legal framework of this Amendment, alongside exploring its practical implications for the Indian financial landscape.

          REGULATORY FOUNDATIONS AND LEGISLATIVE DEVELOPMENTS

          The SCRR was notified by the Central Government to help achieve the objectives of the Securities Contracts (Regulation) Act, 1956 (‘SCRA’) effectively. The preamble clause of the SCRA states that the objective of the statute is to regulate undesirable transactions in securities by overseeing the dealing in securities and monitoring other ancillary business activities. The Amendment aligns the SCRR with this overarching objective. The legal foundation of this Amendment lies in section 30(h)(A) of the SCRA, which gives the Central Government the power to introduce rules stipulating the specific requirements that companies have to follow to get their securities listed on any stock exchange. The word “any” here has to be given a wide interpretation to align with the framers’ intention which was to bestow supervisory and regulatory authority upon the Government to foster the maintenance of a reliable and efficient securities business framework. Therefore, the regulation of listing of securities on IFSCs squarely falls within the competence and authority of the Government.

          Earlier in 2024, the MoF, through a notification amending the Foreign Exchange Management (Non-debt Instruments) Rules, 2019 (‘NDI Rules’), explicitly enabled the listing of securities of public Indian companies on international exchanges recognized in Schedule XI of NDI Rules. This, termed as the Direct Listing Scheme, governed several intricacies such as permissible investors, compliance with sectoral caps, regulations regarding prohibited sectors, and pricing guidelines. Simultaneously, the Ministry of Corporate Affairs (‘MCA’) had also introduced the Companies (Listing of Equity Shares in Permissible Jurisdictions) Rules, 2024 by virtue of its power under section 23(3) r/w section 469 of the Companies Act, 2013 to regulate the entities that can list and jurisdictions where the listing can take place.

          However, both these enactments, along with the Companies (Amendment) Act, 2020 which prescribed certain similar requirements pertaining to listing in international exchanges, served as mere regulatory tools rather than efficient operational guidelines. They prescribed an overarching framework that has to be adhered to during such listing and discussed the eligibility criteria but failed to provide or clarify points regarding specific thresholds and other operational mechanisms specified under the SCRR.

          LEGAL ANALYSIS

          The recent Amendment fills the void identified above by introducing a few but impactful changes in the securities listing regime, thus reflecting its commitment to fostering a globally competitive and investor-friendly framework while aligning domestic practices with international standards. These international standards include the minimum public float thresholds in jurisdictions like Singapore, the International Organisation of Securities Commissions’ principles of efficiency, transparency and fairness in cross-border listings, the securities regime in the Dubai International Financial Centre, the Financial Action Task Force’s Anti-Money Laundering /Combating the Financing of Terrorism recommendations, and the pricing mechanisms and sectoral compliance thresholds present in the European Union Capital Markets Union and the United States Securities and Exchange Commission Regulations.

          The widespread benefits accruing to investors and other stakeholders through the effectuation of this Amendment not only covers the inflow of higher foreign capital and a more efficient and dynamic securities framework but also extends to direct tax advantages. section 10(4D) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 provides a significant tax exemption on income arising from transactions conducted on recognized stock exchanges within IFSCs, including GIFT-IFSC. This incentivizes participation, reduces transactional costs for investors, and creates a persuasive financial rationale for businesses contemplating listing on foreign exchanges. It is also in line with the numerous Double Taxation Avoidance Agreements (‘DTAAs’) entered into by India to prevent non-resident Indians from being taxed twice, in both, India and their country of residence, thus significantly alleviating their tax burden. Additionally, the Securities and Exchange Board of India (‘SEBI’) has considerable control over listing and transactions in the IFSC, as is evident from the scheme of the SEBI (International Financial Services Centres) Guidelines, 2015. This reiterates the commitment of SEBI to safeguard the interests of investors and other stakeholders, alongside maintaining an effective securities landscape.

          An important caveat to consider with respect to this Amendment is that the reduction of thresholds from 25% to 10% extends only to listings made in the IFSC. This implies that as per domestic subscription requirements, the extent of public shareholding is still fixed at the previous 25%. This distinction creates a dual regulatory framework, potentially leading to compliance complexities for companies seeking listings in both domestic and IFSC exchanges. This may limit the seamless integration of domestic and international listing strategies, requiring companies to carefully navigate the differing regulatory requirements to maximize benefits and avoid potential conflicts. Although the text of the Amendment alters Rule 19(2)(b) of SCRR, which covers domestic listings, the primary intention of the legislature was to effect changes in the IFSC listing framework. This ambiguity necessitates a clarification, which will most likely uphold uniformity by stating that the reduction also extends to listings made on domestic stock exchanges by companies wishing to obtain listing on permitted international exchanges. The importance of such uniformity and standardization is also evident from the two definitions (IFSC and International Financial Services Centre Authority (‘IFSCA’) that have been introduced which do not impose their own requirements but simply suggest an alignment with the definitions incorporated in existing legislations. The Amendment while defining these terms states that an IFSC means an IFSC as defined under section 3(1)(g) of the IFSCA Act, 2019 and an IFSCA means the Authority established under section 4(1) of the IFSCA Act. This significantly reduces complexity and fosters consistency and clarity in the navigation of relevant legalities pertaining to share listing and other compliance requirements.

          PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS

          This Amendment marks a shift in India’s financial regulatory regime by redefining the entry of companies into global capital markets. In its amplitude, it is not an ordinary technical change but a strategic recalibration of structures of investment. The reduction of public shareholding thresholds from 25% to 10% for foreign listings creates an easier route for start-ups, emerging businesses, and small, mid and large capitalisation companies to access global capital, a phenomenon that is already experiencing an upward trajectory. For example, the gross foreign portfolio investment (‘FPI’) in India was massively estimated at around US$ 41.6 billion in the year 2023-24, which is bound to increase manifold due to this Amendment. The business insights from  companies like Reliance Industries Limited and HDFC Bank Limited, among others, reflect clear examples of corporations successfully accessing large amounts of global capital due to international financial listing. This consequentially places Indian business enterprises in a robust position as reduction in public shareholding compliance requirements is an attractive proposition for investors.

          Interestingly, the lowering of the barriers to international capital access also provides the same growth opportunities to a wider spectrum of sector-specific enterprises, including deep technology, renewable energy and biotechnology. These are crucial sectors requiring large investments. Furthermore, this change may even decentralise India’s economic hubs by allowing international capital to penetrate smaller companies located in tier-2 and tier-3 cities. As an offshoot, regions other than the economically prospering metro cities would witness increased industrialisation and employment generation since more local companies would gain access to foreign investments.

          A research conducted by the International Monetary Fund on emerging markets provides a broader context in which this Amendment fits into a global trend, towards more accessible and flexible capital markets. It represents the benefits of India’s strategic approach to positioning itself as an attractive destination for global investors. Indian firms may be better positioned to raise capital in foreign currencies with a more straightforward pathway to listing abroad while hedge-protecting firms reliant on imports for raw materials or technology from the capricious market exchange rate.

          Contrary to the apprehensions of capital outflow, this Amendment may benefit India’s domestic markets since an international listing enhances reputation of a company, provides international exposure, and encourages investor confidence. Companies will attract a larger pool of sophisticated retail and institutional investors, leading to increased credibility and brand value through such listings. This will enhance liquidity, valuation, expertise, innovation and overall market efficiency.

          However, the opportunity comes with nuanced challenges, particularly for companies that aim to be listed on both domestic and international exchanges. In a dual-listed company structure, the requirement for multi-jurisdictional shareholder and board approvals introduces complexities to decision-making and company operations. This substantially increases audit and compliance costs, necessitating detailed planning and high investments in financial and legal advisory services.

          CONCLUDING REMARKS

          This Amendment is more than a routine regulatory change because it aims to manifest India as a global financial hub by significantly relaxing listing requirements in the IFSC. It serves as a forward-looking measure with the objective of modernising the Indian securities law landscape and aligning it with international best practices by furthering a more inclusive access to global capital markets. With the introduction of this Amendment, the legislature has taken a significant step in the right direction and it will be interesting to observe the future course this Amendment adopts, particularly concerning its effective implementation.

        3. Examining the Flaws in SEBI’s Proposed AI & ML Regulations

          Examining the Flaws in SEBI’s Proposed AI & ML Regulations

          BY SACHIN DUBEY AND AJITESH SRIVASTAVA, THIRD-YEAR STUDENTS AT NLU, ODISHA AND LLOYD LAW COLLEGE

          INTRODUCTION

          Artificial Intelligence (‘AI’) has become an integral part of our daily lives, influencing everything from smart home technology to cutting-edge medical diagnostics. However, it’s most profound influence is perhaps in transforming the landscape of securities market. AI has advanced the efficiency of investor services and compliance operations. This integration empowers stakeholders to make well-informed decisions, playing a pivotal role in market analysis, stock selection, investment planning, and portfolio management for their chosen securities.

          However, despite the advantages, AI poses risks such as algorithmic bias from biased data, lack of transparency in models, cybersecurity threats, and ethical concerns like job displacement and misuse, highlighting the need for strong regulatory oversight. Therefore, Securities and Exchange Board of India (‘SEBI’) vide consultation paper dated 13thNovember, 2024 proposed amendments holding regulated entities (‘REs’) accountable for the use of AI and machine learning (‘ML’) tools.  

          These amendments enable SEBI to take action in the event of any shortcomings in the use of AI/ML systems. SEBI emphasises that these entities are required to safeguard data privacy, be accountable for actions derived from AI outputs, and fulfil their fiduciary responsibility towards investor data, while ensuring compliance with applicable laws.

          In this article, the author emphasises the necessity of the proposed amendments while simultaneously highlighting their potential drawbacks. 

          NEED OF THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS

          The need for proposing amendments holding REs accountable for AI/ML usage has arisen due to various risks associated with its usage. 

          AI relies heavily on customer inputs and datasets fed into them for arriving at its output. The problem is that humans have found it very difficult to understand or explain how AI arrives at its output. This is widely referred to as “black box problem”. In designing machine learning algorithms, programmers set the goals the algorithm needs to achieve but do not prescribe the exact steps it should follow to solve the problem. Instead, the algorithm creates its own model by learning dynamically from the given data, analysing inputs, and integrating new information to address the problem. This opacity surrounding explainibility of AI outputs raises concerns about accountability for AI-generated outcomes within the legal field.

          Further, if just one element in a dataset changes, it can cause the AI to learn and process information differently, potentially leading to outcomes that deviate from the intended use case. Data may contain inherent biases that reinforce flawed decision-making or include inaccuracies that lead the algorithm to underestimate the probability of rare yet significant events. This may lead to jeopardising the interests of customers and promoting discriminatory user biases. 

          Additionally, relying on large datasets for AI functionality poses considerable risks to privacy and confidentiality. AI models may sometimes be trained on datasets containing customers’ private information or insider data. In such situations, it becomes crucial to establish accountability for breaches of privacy and confidentiality. 

          SHORTCOMINGS

          SEBI’s proposal to amend regulations and assign responsibility for the use of AI and machine learning by REs is well-intentioned. However, it could create challenges for both regulated entities and industry players, potentially slowing down the adoption of AI and stifling innovation.

          a. Firstly, SEBI’s proposal to assign responsibility for AI usage adopts a uniform, one-size-fits-all regulatory approach, which may ultimately hinder technological innovation. Effective AI regulation requires greater flexibility, favouring a risk-based framework. This approach classifies AI systems based on their risk levels and applies tailored regulatory measures according to the associated risks. A notable example is the European Union’s AI Act which adopts a proportionate, risk-based approach to AI regulation. This framework introduces a graduated system of requirements and obligations based on the level of risk an AI system poses to health, safety, and fundamental rights. The Act classifies risks into four distinct categories- unacceptable risks, high risks, limited risks and minimal risks. As per the classification, certain AI practices which come under the category of unacceptable risks are completely prohibited while others have been allowed to continue with obligations imposed upon them to ensure transparency.  

          b. Secondly, while SEBI’s regulatory oversight of AI usage by REs is crucial for protecting investor interests, it is equally important to establish an internal management body to oversee the adoption and implementation of AI within these entities. SEBI could draw insights from the International Organization of Securities Commission’s (‘IOSCO’) final report on AI and machine learning in market intermediaries and asset management. The report recommends that regulated entities designate senior management to oversee AI/ML development, deployment, monitoring, and controls. It also advocates for a documented governance framework with clear accountability and assigning a qualified senior individual or team to approve initial deployments and major updates, potentially aligning this role with existing technology or data oversight.

          c. Thirdly, SEBI has entirely placed the responsibility for AI and machine learning usage on REs, neglecting to define the accountability of external stakeholders or third-party providers. REs significantly rely on third parties for AI/ML technologies to ensure smooth operations. Hence, it is vital to clearly outline the responsibilities of these third parties within the AI value chain. 

          d. Fourthly, the Asia Securities Industry & Financial Markets Association (‘ASIFMA’) raised a concern that financial institutions should not be held responsible for client decisions based on AI-generated outputs. It contends that it would be unjustified to hold institutions liable when an AI tool provides precise information, but the client subsequently makes an independent decision. This viewpoint goes against SEBI’s proposed amendments which seemingly endorses broader institutional liability.  

          e. Lastly, SEBI’s proposed amendments and existing regulations remain silent on the standards or requirements for the data sets (input data) utilized by AI/ML systems to carry out their functions. While the amendments imply that REs must ensure AI models are trained using data sets that either do not require consent (e.g., publicly available data) or have obtained appropriate consent, particularly under the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 (DPDPA), SEBI could have more explicitly define the standards for high-quality data sets suitable for AI/ML functionality particularly crucial when the data protection rules have not seen the light of the day.

          CONCLUSION

          While it is commendable that SEBI, recognizing the growing use of AI/ML tools in the financial sector, proposed amendments to hold REs accountable for their usage, it should have given due consideration to the factors mentioned above. Because it is vital to ensure that any policy introduced is crafted carefully in a way that does not, in any way, discourage innovation and growth in the emerging fields of AI and ML technology.