The Corporate & Commercial Law Society Blog, HNLU

Tag: SEBI

  • Tick-Box to Truth – SEBI’s 2025 Clarifications and the Crisis of Director Autonomy

    Tick-Box to Truth – SEBI’s 2025 Clarifications and the Crisis of Director Autonomy

    BY HARSHITA DHINWA AND RAM SUNDAR SINGH AKELA, FOURTH- YEAR STUDENTS AT NUSRL, RANCHI

    INTRODUCTION

    The first six months of 2025 saw a historic culling of Independent Directors from Corporate boardrooms in India where more than 150 Independent directors voluntarily resigned from numerous listed companies, not in anticipation to join new ventures but as an ultimate defense against the unprecedented growth in regulatory scrutiny and personal liability. The prime mover in this instance is the Securities and Exchange Board of India’s (‘SEBI’) 2025 clarificatory note on “Material pecuniary relationship” with securities under Regulation 16(1)(b)(iv) of the Listing Obligations and Disclosure Requirements (‘LODR’) Regulations 2015. However, a deeper look into the high-profile cases such as InfoBeans Technologies 2025, Byju’s 2024-25, Paytm Payments Bank 2024, Dewan Housing Finance Corporation Limited 2021-23, and Punjab and Maharashtra Co-operative PMC Bank 2019 -20 show a systemic connection where in all of them, the directors identified promoter domination, limited information about the financial data, and the threat of retrospective legal action as the main drivers. The main motive is to strengthen such governance by rewiring what the concept of independence means, to go beyond formal financial bright-lines to examine the relative economic and social frameworks that CEOs and nominal IDs should be freed from.

    SEBI’S 2025 CLARIFICATIONS: A SHIFT IN STANDARD OF INDEPENDENCE

      SEBI’s informal guidance to InfoBeans Technologies on May 14. 2025, clarifying “material pecuniary relationship” under  Regulation 16(1)(b)(iv) of the LODR Regulations left a big shift in independent directorships as a mere formula compliance to its substantive decision-making by independent directors, which saw a significant shift from size and revenue-based materiality assessment.

      Historically, Section 149(6) of the Companies Act, 2013, defined independence with the help of a quantifiable limit where pecuniary transactions not exceeding 10% of a director’s total income over two preceding final years would be considered independent.  SEBI’s clarification introduced a more wholesome evaluation of ongoing relationship, indirect economic ties and potential biasness to judgment, without numerical limits. Through InfoBeans, SEBI evaluated an Independent Director’s (‘ID’) proposed consultancy with an overseas subsidiary, compensated with 10% of their income, noting that materiality under LODR lacks a fixed ceiling, urging boards and Nomination and Remuneration Committee (NRC’s) to prioritize substance over form in its assessment of independence.

      This aligns with the Ministry of Corporate Affairs’ (‘MCA’) General Circular No. 14/2014, which excluded sitting fees and reimbursement from assessment of pecuniary relationship while focusing on autonomy. Moreover, the J.J. Irani Committee Report (2005) recommended assessing materiality from the director’s or Recipient’s perspective, proposing a 10% income threshold for transactions, that is, the key consideration will be whether the scale of financial involvement is substantial enough to compromise the director’s involvement. According to ICAI’s “Technical Guide on the Provision of Independent Directors from Corporate Governance Perspective, 2021”, the method of fiscal compilation should be disregarded, while also citing MCA’s October MCA’s 2018 Offences Committee Report recommended a 20% cap (Excluding sitting fees) to curb the erosion of directors’ discretionary powers and to standardize the governance framework. Due Diligence Norms demand prime disclosures and retrospective inspections on “friendly” directors to prioritize independent directors’ bias-free judgements over formally induced compliance. This change challenges the board to rethink their appointment and oversight role, ensuring that IDs are free from any social and economic influence.

      THE MASS DEPARTURE: CRISIS DISGUISED AS COMPLIANCE

        SEBI’s clarification has nearly provoked a boardroom Exodus, with almost 549 IDs resigning in FY25, of which, 94% mid-term, most of which were serving on National Stock Exchange  comparable to 2019’s wave, where 1390+ IDs quit. Resignation is more seen in firms facing financial distress, regulatory sanction, or governance lapses, and where ID’s report promoter-driven opacity, restricted access to financial data and fear of personal liability is rampant. For instance, the IDs of Byju’s resigned stating promoter-controlled decision-making and lack of financial transparency, as reported in MCA filings. Paytm’s directors exited fearing personal liability when the Reserve bank of India imposed penalties for non-compliance, while PMC Bank’s directors were investigated for failing to detect loan irregularities. The IL&FS crisis, where IDs were liable for oversight failures despite limited access to information, sets a precedent. Further, a 2025 NSE report noted a 30% resignation spike post-clarification, showing a crisis masked as compliance. The InfoBeans guidance multiplied fears of retrospective liability, as SEBI’s overall scrutiny exposed IDs to risk for past decisions, even beyond what they have in control.

        This “regulated retreat” arises from an inherent imbalance in structure where IDs face fiduciary and criminal liability under Section 149(8) of the Companies Act and SEBI’s review of regulatory provisions related to independent directors, but lack veto power, access to audit reports, or whistleblower protections. Unlike the system governing the U.S., where the Business Judgment Rule shields diligent directors, India’s framework leaves IDs in a much vulnerable position. It has been seen that IDs were penalized in  SAHARA India v. SEBI for promoter-driven judgments despite restricted authority. The legality was defeated in Chanda Kochhar V. SEBI, where IDs were examined for endorsing inequitable loans exposed under Section 149 as parental predominance over promoters. ID Nusli Wadia, who was revealed in the Tata-Mistry saga, also exposed parental superiority. This appears in the MCA’s 2018 Offences Committee Report, pointing ID liability concerns as one of the motives for quitting, which requests increased safeguarding of Section 149. The absence of being able to manage this risk without authority is what, in fact, leads good directors to quit high-risk companies, which in turn triggers the need for our IDs to be upgraded seamlessly, plus for the governance to re-establish its integrity

        THE PAPER-THIN PROMISE OF INDEPENDENCE

          Section 149(6) of the Companies Act, 2013, and Regulation 16 of LODR, create a mirage of independence by prioritizing formal disqualifications such as past financial ties, shareholding, or employment over functional autonomy.  In promoter-dominated firms, constituting 60% of listed entities, IDs are often selected by promoters, undermining their primary role as stakeholder guardians. The Kotak Committee Report (2017) criticized NRCs for acting as rubber stamps, failing to rigorously vet independence as evidenced in Dish TV India Ltd. (2021 BSE Filing), where minority shareholders challenged ID appointments for lacking autonomy and exposing promoter overreach. Similarly, in N. Narayan v. SEBI, IDs were penalized for governance lapses without direct involvement, highlighting judicial overreach that generally disregards Section 149(12)’s liability limits.

          The absence of the safe harbor Doctrine and the Delaware–style “entire fairness” test, which protects directors by scrutinizing conflicted transactions, worsens the ID exodus. Originally a creature of U.S. corporate law, the Safe Harbor Doctrine protects directors from liability arising out of decisions made in good faith, with due care and in the best interests of its company, even though outcomes can come out adverse. In the state of Delaware, the theory is codified in the “Business Judgment rule” which presumes director are diligent unless proven otherwise. This sharply contrasts with Section 149(12), which limits ID liability to act with knowledge or consent, but is inconsistently enforced as seen in the Narayan v. SEBI case.

          In addition, the U.K.’s Stewardship Code, issued by the Financial Reporting Council, mandates BODs and institutional investors to prioritize long-term value, transparency, and stakeholder interests, and requires annual disclosure of voting policies and dissent. Principle 7 emphasizes board independence, urging directors to challenge management constructively. In Royal Dutch Shell plc, the Code’s application compelled directors to disclose climate-related governance decisions, thereby enhancing accountability. India’s Regulation 25 mandates separate ID meetings, but these lack the Code’s rigor, as seen in the case study of Yes Bankfiasco , where IDs failed to curb risky lending due to promoter dominance and limited collective action.

          REIMAGINING INDEPENDENCE – A BLUEPRINT FOR REFORMS

          Halting the departure and regaining trust requires the implementation of reforms in India’s corporate governance. Firstly, since promoter dominance affects 60% of listed companies, it must be controlled by mandating independent third-party nomination panels as proposed per CII . These Panels will compromise minority shareholders, institutional investors and industry experts ensuring that ID appointments are based on expertise and autonomy. Secondly, in addition to the self-declaration under Section 149, promoters should explicitly state whether they have any prior economic, social, or historical relationships with ID candidates, either professionally or financially. This will be supported financially by NRCs and audited by external auditors, thus maintaining transparency and individual choice, preventing such promoter-led appointments. Thirdly, the implementation of the safe harbor doctrine for IDs who are on-record documents of dissent in board minutes. SEBI has recommended this in its consultation paper on directors’ protections, reducing the threat of multiple resignations due to IDS fearing punishment for not protecting the company.

           Fourth, flexibility and competitiveness in remuneration: SEBI in 2019 proposed capped stock options needing both shareholder and minority approval. Here, remuneration is competitive with attracting high-caliber talent but that does not compromise their independence. By the 2018 Report for MCA unlike high fees, which consider sitting fees insufficient, this alignment’s alternative ID incentives with the businessman’s interests; therefore, they should be retained. Fifthly, regular training on finance, risk, and compliance should be guaranteed and Formal evaluations of ID performance should be conducted. Sixthly, using Regulation 25 separate ID meetings to arrange red flags and Section 150’s databank and expertise tests for experienced IDs should be streamlined; these reforms would make ids empowered overseers, not ornamental figures.

          CONCLUSION

          Independence now feels like  escape, not strength. What was obtained to construct what SEBI 2025 will build has instead exposed the unwillingness of our setup to deny real power but equally demand responsibility. The interpretation of “material pecuniary relationship” under Section 149(6) (c) of the Companies Act and Regulation 16(1)(b)(iv) of SEBI’s LODR Regulations, certainly post-SEBI’s InfoBeans guidance, shows a stark shift from tick-the-box to substance. Independence can be assessed not just on paper but equally in spirit, making it free from past ties, undue influence or hidden loyalties. Independence must be both real and visible for effective governance.

          To stem the prevalent exodus of IDs and reinstate confidence in corporate governance, Section 149(6), (12) of the Companies Act, and Regulations 16 and 25 of LODR should be amended to include a safe harbour doctrine for the protection of dissenting IDs, a guarantee for full access to audit data & whistleblower protection, and independent nomination panels without influence of promoters. Remuneration should be fixed with independence safeguards to balance autonomy and talent attraction in the industry, and a materiality threshold should be codified to ascertain pecuniary relationships.  These amendments will ensure independence, substantive rather than symbolic, and they will strengthen integrity in corporate governance.

        1. 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.

        2. India’s Social Stock Exchange: How Compliance Strains Impact NPOs and Social Impact Assessors?

          India’s Social Stock Exchange: How Compliance Strains Impact NPOs and Social Impact Assessors?

          BY DHARSHAN GOVINTH R AND SIDDHARTH VERMA, FOURTH- YEAR AT GNLU, GANDHINAGAR

          INTRODUCTION

          India’s Social Stock Exchange (‘SSE’) is a trend-setting initiative introduced by the Securities and Exchange Board of India (‘SEBI’) in 2022, which by aiming to align capital markets and philanthropic purposes intended to give a fund-raising ground for non-profit organizations (‘NPO’) and other social entities. But this initiative is displaying some strains especially after the SEBI circular issued in late September 2025 which made some modifications in SSE’s compliance framework bringing forth the credibility-capacity paradox, which would be examined in this research work.

          This article explores this paradox of credibility and capacity, by first outlining the recent modification brought out by SEBI. Secondly it is followed by a thorough analysis of the modified compliance architecture is done to assess as to what makes this framework problematic. Thirdly, an analysis of SSEs in different countries is done to highlight upon potential modifications which can be done in India.  Finally, it gives some ideas of reform to balance the rigor and inclusivity in the present framework.

          THE MODIFIED FRAMEWORK AND ITS FAULTLINES

            The circular of SEBI has established a compliance framework, where the modifications as follows are of significance. The circular mandates 31st October of each year as the deadline to submit a duly verified Annual Impact Report (‘AIR’) by all fundraising non-profits. It also mandates those non-profits which have been registered on SSE but haven’t listed their securities to submit a self-reported AIR covering 67% of the program expenditure. Then, there is a mandate that all the above AIRs need to be assessed by Social Impact Assessors (‘SIA’).

            Although initially these modifications may show that there is a sense of strengthened transparency, three problems emerge upon implementation. Firstly, the dual-track approach—which creates unequal degrees of credibility by having separate compliance requirements for two types of NPOs. Secondly, there is a problem of supply-demand as the limited supply of SIAs (approximately 1,000 nationwide) is insufficient to meet demand as hundreds of NPOs enter the SSE. Finally, smaller NGOs with tighter finances are disproportionately affected by compliance expenses, such as audit fees and data gathering. These concerns need to be analyzed further inorder to determine whether the SSE can provide both accountability and inclusivity.

            HOW THE PRESENT COMPLIANCE ARCHITECTURE LEADS TO CREDIBILITY-CAPACITY PARADOX?

              The present modification of the compliance framework by SEBI has in its core, the aim to grow the trust of the investors by means of mandating independent verifications. Nevertheless, this framework exhibits inconsistencies which need to be undone. The first gap that is visible is the problem of credibility. This modification proposes a dual-track SEBI’s modification institutes a dual-track compliance: NPOs that raise funds must file an auditor-verified AIR, whereas SSE-registered entities that have not listed securities (mostly smaller NPOs) may submit a self-verified AIR. This distinction creates a clear credibility gap where investors and donors will reasonably rely on audited AIRs, effectively privileging well-resourced organisations and marginalising smaller, self-reporting grassroots NPOs that lack access to auditors or the capacity to procure independent verification. Another issue is the mandatory coverage of 67% of the program expense in the AIR by the non-listed NPOs , which on one hand may lead to extensive coverage of the financials of those NPOs, but on the other hand pose a heavy operational burden on these NPOs which manages diverse programmes.  The expenses of fulfilling this duty may be unaffordable for NPOs without baseline data or technological resources.

              Moving from the issue of credibility, the challenge of capacity—stemming from the scarcity of SIAs—presents a more significant concern. The industry faces a supply-demand mismatch as there are only around 1,000 qualified assessors across India in self-regulatory organizations (‘SRO’) like ICAI, ICSI, ICMAI, etc., who are selected through qualification examinations conducted by National Institute of Securities Market. The problem is that compliance becomes contingent not on the diligence of NPOs but on the availability of auditors.

              Financial strain completes the triad of challenges. Impact audits are resource-intensive, requiring field verification, outcome measurement, and translation of qualitative change into quantifiable indicators. These tasks incur substantial fees, particularly in rural or remote contexts. Unlike corporations conducting corporate social responsibility activities (‘CSR’), which under Section 135 of Companies Act 2013 caps impact assessment costs at 2% of project outlay or ₹50 lakh, SSE-listed NPOs do not enjoy any such relief. The absence of stronger fiscal offsets weakens the fundraising advantage of SSE listing, making the cost-benefit calculus unfavorable for many small organizations.

              These dynamics create what may be described as a credibility–capacity paradox. The SSE rightly seeks to establish credibility through rigour, but the costs of compliance risk exclude the very grassroots non-profit organizations it was designed to support. Larger, urban, and professionalized NPOs may adapt, but smaller entities operating at the community level may find participation infeasible. Nevertheless, it would be reductive to see the SSE’s framework as wholly burdensome. Its emphasis on independent audits is a landmark reform that aligns India with global best practices in social finance. The challenge is to recalibrate the balance so that transparency does not come at the expense of inclusivity.

              LEARNING FROM GLOBAL SSES: AVOIDING EXCLUSIONS, BUILDING INCLUSION

                India’s SSE is not the first of its kind. Looking at examples of abroad helps us see what works and what doesn’t. For instance, Brazil’s SSE, established in 2003 raised funds for about 188 projects but mostly attracted larger NPOs, leaving smaller groups behind. In the same way, the SSE of UK, established in 2013 favored professional entities as it operated more as a directory than a true exchange, raising €400 million. Both examples show how heavy compliance rules can narrow participation leaving small NPOs and eventually these SSEs failed to be in the operation in due time.

                The SSEs of Canada and Singapore, both established in 2013 also set strict listing criteria but unlike the above, paired them with direct NPO support, including capacity-building and fundraising assistance, especially for small scale NPOs. This made compliance more manageable. India can learn that it can prevent these exclusions of certain non-profits and create an SSE that is both legitimate and inclusive by combining strict audit regulations with phased requirements and financial support.

                BRIDGING GAPS THROUGH REFORM: MAKING INDIA’S SSE MORE EQUITABLE

                A multi-pronged reform agenda can address these tensions. Firstly, SEBI could ease compliance costs for small NGOs by creating a centralized digital platform with standardized reporting templates and promoting shared auditor networks to spread expenses. Further, in order to breakdown entry barriers to smaller NPOs, a phased-tier system of compliance could be implemented to the requirements for audits in the initial years. This phased tier system can be achieved for instance by first mandating 40-50% of coverage of expenditures in the audit in the initial years and then gradually rising the threshold to the 67% requirement as per the recent modification to ease compliance.

                Secondly, the creation of a SSE Capacity Fund, which could be funded by CSR allocations would be a viable step for reducing the burden of compliance and to preserve the resources of NPOs which are already limited. These subsidies and grants through these funds could maintain both financial stability and accountability of NPOs.

                Third, SROs have to develop professional capacities in a short time, which could be done by the increase in accelerated certification programmes among people who have pertinent experience. In addition, in order to protect credibility, the SROs must require the auditors to undergo rotation and then make sure that the advisory and auditory functions are never combined. Lastly, expenditure on digital infrastructure will help diminish compliance costs greatly. This could be done for instance by establishing a common platform of data collection and impact reporting which might allow small NPOs to be prepared to comply effectively. These systems could assist in bridging the gap between the professional audit requirements and the small capacity of smaller NPOs.

                CONCLUSION

                India’s SSE has undoubtedly increased the credibility of the social sector by instituting mandatory audits and transparent reporting for listed social enterprises, thereby strengthening the confidence of investors and donors. This is a significant achievement in formalizing social finance. However, this audit-driven transparency also illustrates a “credibility–capacity paradox”: rigorous accountability measures, while necessary, impose high compliance burdens on smaller grassroots nonprofits with limited resources. If there is no support or mitigation mechanisms, the SSE may inadvertently narrow the field of participants and undermine its inclusive mission. In contrast, international peers show more balanced regulatory models, thereby showing a way forward for India as well. For instance, Canada’s SSE combines stringent vetting with tailored capacity-building programs, and Singapore’s SSE employs a social-impact framework and supportive ecosystem to enforce accountability while nurturing small social enterprises. Ultimately, a mature SSE should balance oversight with inclusivity and support. If India implements this balance, which it lacks, its SSE could be an equitable, inclusive, digitally integrated and resource-efficient platform in the coming decade. Such an SSE would leverage digital reporting to cut costs and uphold rigorous transparency standards, while genuinely empowering grassroots impact.

              1. Beyond Arbitrage: The High-Speed Scandal That Shook Dalal Street

                Beyond Arbitrage: The High-Speed Scandal That Shook Dalal Street

                PRIYANSHI JAIN, FOUTH-YEAR STUDENT AT INSTITUTE OF LAW, NIRMA UNIVERSITY

                INTRODUCTION

                India’s ₹4,844 crore Jane Street case was not just about fraudulent trading; it attacked the very credibility of India’s securities market. It is about whether the world’s largest derivatives market is built on a settlement system that can easily be manipulated.

                On July 2025, the Securities Exchange Board of India (‘SEBI’) passed an interim order against the Jane Street group, an American proprietary trading firm, for its alleged manipulation of the Bank Nifty index derivatives during expiry-day trading. The order seized nearly ₹4,844 crore and barred the firm from accessing Indian markets while proceedings continue. It was SEBI’s largest enforcement action of its kind and immediately drew attention across financial and legal circles.

                The case matters because it highlights the structural flaws in India’s market framework. Unlike the United States (‘US’) and European Union (‘EU’), which use closing auctions, or Singapore, which employs randomized settlement windows, India continues to rely on a 30-minute Volume-Weighted Average Price (‘VWAP’) to settle expiries. VWAP, an indicator derived from price and volume that represents the average price of a security, is increasingly outdated. Entity-level surveillance misses group strategies and doctrinal standards under the Prohibition of Fraudulent and Unfair Trade Practices Regulations, 2003 (‘PFUTP’), which remain unclear. SEBI’s order looks powerful in the headlines, but in reality, its durability before tribunals is far less certain.

                EXPIRY-DAY MECHANICS AND VULNERABILITIES

                To understand why SEBI’s order matters, it is necessary to see how expiry in India works. When Bank Nifty future options expire every Thursday, their final settlement value is not taken from the last traded price. Instead, it is computed using the VWAP of the index in the last half-an-hour before trading closes. The problem lies in VWAP as it can be influenced. Large, well-timed trades placed near the close can push the average up or down, even if only slightly. This practice is known as “marking the close”, and it can tilt the expiry settlement in a direction favourable to those who hold large options positions. In theory, these trades appear genuine; however, in reality, they are buy or sell orders, and their purpose is to manipulate the benchmark rather than reflect true supply and demand.

                The stakes are high as Bank Nifty is India’s most heavily-traded derivatives contract. As per SEBI’s own analysis, nearly 9/10 of retail derivatives traders lost money, with Bank Nifty options driving much of this activity. Even a slight change in VWAP can result in major retail losses. Unlike the US or EU, where expiry markets are dominated by institutions with hedging strategies, India’s market is retail-driven. This implies that structural fragilities like VWAP distortions inflict disproportionate harm on individuals who are least equipped to hedge risk. What looks like a technical flaw in design is a transfer of wealth from small investors to sophisticated firms.

                VWAP was chosen to avoid the distortions of last-trade settlement, but in practice, it creates a different vulnerability: it concentrates risk in a short window that sophisticated traders can target. The Jane Street episode illustrates that the vulnerability is not in one firm’s strategy but in the structure of the expiry system itself.

                LEGAL FRAMEWORK AND DOCTRINAL STANDARDS

                PFUTP Regulations, 2003

                SEBI’s case against Jane Street rests mainly on the Prohibition of Fraudulent and Unfair Trade Practices (PFUTP) Regulations, 2003. Regulation 3 prohibits the use of fraudulent or deceptive devices, and Regulation 4(1) bans trading practices that create a false or misleading appearance of trading or manipulate prices.

                Indian tribunals have consistently required a high threshold for providing manipulation. In Ketan Parekh v. SEBI (2006), (‘Ketan Parekh’), the Securities Appellate Tribunal (‘SAT’) held that a case must show the creation of an artificial price backed by intent, not merely aggressive or opportunistic trading. In Nirma Bang Securities v. SEBI (2004), the SAT emphasised that trades must produce a false appearance; if the orders are real and executed transparently on an exchange, they may not qualify as fraud. In DSQ Software Ltd. v. SEBI (2002), (‘DSQ Software’), expiry-day manipulation was penalised, but the case turned on circular trades and matched orders, not exploitation of settlement mechanics.

                Under Ketan Parekh, influencing VWAP may not amount to an “artificial” price at all, since VWAP is the legally prescribed benchmark. Under the Nirmal Bang case, Jane Street’s trades were genuine, transparent, and on-exchange, which made it difficult to argue that they created a “misleading appearance”. And unlike DSQ Software, where sham trades propped up expiry values, here the trades were economically real, albeit timed strategically. SEBI must therefore stretch precedent to fit behaviour that exploits design flaws rather than violates market integrity in the conventional sense.

                SEBI ACT, 1992

                The SEBI Act, 1992, grants the regulator broad powers to act in the interest of investors. Section 11 establishes SEBI’s mandate, while Sections 11B and 11D allow it to issue interim directions, including barring firms from markets. Section 12A prohibits manipulative conduct, and Section 24 provides for criminal sanctions.

                Interim orders under these provisions are often passed ex-parte, which enables SEBI to act quickly. Yet their durability is fragile. On appeal before the SAT or the Supreme Court, regulators must present evidence that meets the strict doctrinal tests of “artificial price” or “misleading appearance”. As past jurisprudence shows, SEBI’s broad preventive powers are constrained by how tribunals interpret manipulation, and orders that appear stringent at first glance often face dilution when they are tested against precedent.

                FPI REGULATIONS, 2019

                SEBI also cited breaches of the Foreign Portfolio Investor Regulations, 2019 (‘FPIRegulations’). Regulation 20(4) restricts intraday netting of trades across affiliates. The logic is to prevent one entity from using multiple arms to take offsetting positions. However, India’s surveillance remains entity-based, not consolidated. If affiliates or sub-accounts operate in coordination, their trades may escape detection unless positions are aggregated at the group level.

                This creates a structural blind spot. SEBI can penalise one entity, but coordinated strategies across multiple offshore vehicles may remain invisible. The Jane Street episode underscores how global trading firms can exploit the limits of surveillance architecture rather than simply breaching the letter of the law.

                SEBI’S INTERIM ORDER: STRENGTHS AND LIMITS

                SEBI’s interim order against Jane Street was notable for its speed and scale. Within days of the expiry, SEBI had impounded nearly ₹4,844 crore and imposed a trading ban. The sheer size of the disgorgement sent a deterrent signal not only to foreign portfolio investors but also to domestic proprietary desks that expiry-day strategies would be scrutinized closely. By framing the order around retail investor protection, SEBI strengthened its optics: Bank Nifty is retail-heavy, and positioning the case as a defence of small investors bolstered regulatory legitimacy. SEBI’s action is depicted as forceful yet legally fragile, because proving manipulation under PFUTP technically requires showing an artificial or misleading price, and Jane Street’s on-exchange, economically significant trades may be viewed as lawful VWAP exploitation unless regulators prove the trades lacked any legitimate economic purpose, a stance appellate bodies like the SAT have taken in narrowing “manipulation” in past cases. The order also highlights a surveillance gap: by focusing on entity-level positions, current systems may miss coordinated strategies run across affiliates or sub-accounts, implying that without group-level oversight enforcement can become piecemeal, penalizing one entity while broader structure remains unaddressed. The upshot is a recurring cycle where headline penalties signal resolve, but fragile legal footing leads to dilution or reversal on appeal unless settlement frameworks and surveillance architectures are overhauled to withstand scrutiny and capture cross-entity orchestration at scale.

                COMPARATIVE INSIGHTS AND REFORM DIRECTIONS

                India should pivot from a 30-minute VWAP expiry to transparent closing auctions or hybrid windows to curb benchmark tilts and concentrate integrity where liquidity is deepest. Sequencing pilots on F&O names and phasing towards auctions aligns with global practice and SEBI’s active consultations, while guarding liquidity optics. At the same time, regulators should mandate group-level disclosures and beneficial ownership look-through, operationalized via standardized, trigger-based reporting and a lead-regulator model. Cross-border Memorandum of Understandings with explicit timelines and data schemes should backstop enforcement against SPVs and secrecy regimes. Finally, the pair auction closes with AI-assisted surveillance under human oversight, restrained on labelled expiry datasets to manage false positives.

                CONCLUSION

                The Jane Street episode underlines that India’s episode underlines that India’s expiry framework itself is vulnerable. VWAP-based settlement concentrates risk in a narrow window, while entity-level surveillance misses coordinated strategies across affiliates. These are not flaws of one case but of the market’s design.

                Doctrinally, SEBI also faces hurdles. Under the PFUTP Regulations, tribunals have demanded proof of “artificial prices” or “misleading appearances”. Jane Street’s trades, though large and well-timed, were real and visible. This ambiguity may weaken SEBI’s case before appellate forums, showing how difficult it is to stretch the old standard to new trading strategies.

                The policy lesson is straightforward: in the absence of change, SEBI will continue to act reactively, making headlines by penalizing people after the fact while running the risk of legal reversals. Reliance on VWAP and fragmented oversight leaves India exposed in ways other major markets have already addressed through auctions, randomization, and consolidated monitoring.

                For the world’s largest derivatives market, with millions of retail traders, the demand is simple that India’s framework should be at least as robust as that of the US or EU. Anything less risks repeating the same cycle.

              2. Sustainable Finance: Deconstructing SEBI’s Framework for ESG Debt Securities

                Sustainable Finance: Deconstructing SEBI’s Framework for ESG Debt Securities

                VIDUSHI AND AADARSH GAUTAM, FIFTH -YEAR STUDENTS AT NLUD, NEW DELHI

                INTRODUCTION

                On June 5, 2025, the Securities and Exchange Board of India (‘SEBI’), in its Circular titled “Framework for Environment, Social and Governance (ESG) Debt Securities (other than green debt securities)” (‘Circular’) has come out with an operational framework Circular for issuance of social bonds, sustainability bonds and sustainability-linked bonds, which together will be known as Environment, Social and Governance (“ESG”) debt securities. Before this amendment and the introduction of the ESG Framework, SEBI had formally recognised only green bonds. While the regulatory landscape in India was initially focused solely on green bonds, market practices had already begun embracing broader ESG categories. This Circular is significant as it will help issuers to raise money for more sustainable projects, assisting in closing the funding gap for the Sustainable Development Goals.

                The Circular is part of a larger regulatory trajectory that began with SEBI’s consultation paper released on August 16, 2024. The consultation paper had proposed to expand the scope of the sustainable finance framework in the Indian securities market, recognising the growing global demand for capital mobilization to achieve the 2030 Sustainable Development Goals (“SDGs”). It had set the stage for subsequent amendments to the SEBI (Issue and Listing of Non-Convertible Securities) Regulations, 2021 through the SEBI (Issue and Listing of Non-Convertible Securities) (Third Amendment) Regulations, 2024, which formally introduced the definition of ESG Debt Securities under Regulation 2(1)(oa). This blog analyses how the Circular operationalises these regulatory intentions to create a structured ecosystem for the issuance and listing of a broader class of ESG debt instruments in India.

                UNDERSTANDING ESG DEBT SECURITIES

                ESG Debt Securities in their definition include green debt securities (“GDS”), social bonds, sustainability bonds, and sustainability-linked bonds. While GDS have already been defined under Regulation 2(1)(q) of NCS Regulations, with effect from date of release, SEBI’s new Circular governs the issuance and definition of ESG Debt Securities, excluding GDS. The definition is deliberately wide to encompass advancements in international standards encompassing the International Capital Market Association (ICMA) Principles, the Climate Bonds Standard, and the ASEAN Standards among others. This permit the incorporation of additional categories of ESG Debt Securities as designated internationally and by SEBI periodically. Thus, if any activity qualifies internationally to ESG Standards, it will be able to secure the tag in India, too. These international standards are also relevant for issuers for adherence to initial and continuous disclosures for issuance of ESG Debt Securities as will be discussed later in this blog.

                This Circular provides the definition of social bonds as a way for firms to gain finances for initiatives that positively benefit society. For example, governments may involve projects aimed at improving water supply, supplying necessities like medical care and education, ensuring food security, and improving fundamental infrastructure. Similarly, sustainability bonds are defined as made for the purpose of financing green and social projects. They acknowledge the convergence of environmental and social goals. For instance, in 2020, Alphabet Inc., Google’s parent organisation, made the prominent move of offering a USD 5.75 billion bond in support of sustainability. Part of these bonds went to finance green buildings and electric transport, demonstrating how sustainability bonds can be multipurpose.

                Besides, under this framework, sustainability-linked bonds (“SLBs”) are very different from bonds tied to the use of funds. They do not depend on a single project but are based on the issuer’s continuous ESG achievements. The issuers make forward-looking commitments to enhance their sustainability by using Key Performance Indicators (“KPIs”) and comparing their outcomes with their agreed-upon Sustainability Performance Targets (“SPTs”). Even though the proceeds from these bonds are flexible, the issuance process is only credible if the issuer is able to accomplish the set goals.

                As ESG bonds are distinct in their manner of use of investment obtained, separate obligations and requirements are laid down by the Circular for these bonds as will be explored next.

                THE PROPOSED REGULATORY FRAMEWORK

                At the outset, an issuer desirous of issuing these social bonds, sustainable bonds or SLBs have to comply with initial disclosure requirements, continuous disclosure obligations and appoint independent third-party certifiers as per the Circular. The issuance of social and sustainable bonds requires adherence to requirements as per Annexure A and for SLBs as per Annexure B. The primary aim behind the requirements remains transparency and investor protection. For instance, as per Annexure A, the initial disclosure regarding how the project benefits the public put an end to the raising of money for projects without adequate information and instil trust in investors. Significantly, the Circular provides for the qualification of a third-party reviewer by mandating independence, expertise and lack of any conflict of interest. It is to be highlighted that while the presence of third-party reviewers remains essential and a step forward in right direction, the regulations governing ESG credit rating agencies are still evolving to enhance clarity and transparency and are at a comparatively nascent stage. The ability of reviewers to provide accurate and tailored reviews rather than template ones remains untested and the Circular does not provide guidelines that could ensure it.

                In addition to the above requirements, as per Annexure B, SLBs need to comply to certain unique requirements due to the forward-looking, performance-oriented characteristics of these instruments. During the issuance phase, issuers must furnish exhaustive information on chosen KPIs, encompassing definitions, calculation benchmarks, while elucidating the justification for picking such KPIs. Similar to the framework for social and sustainable bonds, an independent third-party need to be appointed to verify the credibility of the selected KPIs and SPTs. If there is any change in the method by which the company sets or measures KPIs or SPTs, this information has to be examined and notified. This strict structure guarantees that SLBs are both ambitious and transparent, providing investors with a reliable means to evaluate issuers’ ESG performance over the course of time.

                ACTION MEETS AMBITION: ELIMINATING PURPOSE-WASHING

                One of the significant change brought by the framework is to ensure that the instruments are “true to their labels”. The issuer is not allowed to use any misleading labels, hide any negative effects or choose to only highlight positive outcomes without informing negative aspects. Herein, to prevent purpose washing, that is misleadingly portraying of funds as impact investments, the regulator mandates that the funds and their utilisation to meet the agreed ESG objectives are continuously monitored. Any misuse of the allocated funds has to be immediately reported and the debenture holders’ have the right to early redemption.

                The mandatory nature of impact reporting by the issuer ensures to provide clear and transparent assessments of the outcomes of their ESG labelled initiatives. Such report shall include both qualitative (explaining narratives, approaches, case studies and contexts of social impact) and quantitative indicators (specific metrics and measurable data, such as carbon emissions reduced, of the social impact) and should be supplemented by third party verification. As a result, SEBI ensures to create a culture of responsibility that extends beyond initial issuance and to the complete lifecycle of the management. These mechanisms ensures a comprehensive framework of safeguards aimed at protecting investors and maintaining the integrity of India’s sustainable finance ecosystem.

                THE WAY FORWARD

                SEBI’s ESG Debt Securities Framework is a relevant and progressive regulatory advancement that broadens India’s sustainable finance repertoire beyond green bonds to encompass social, sustainability, and sustainability-linked bonds. The Circular enhances market integrity and connects India’s ESG debt landscape with global best practices by incorporating stringent disclosure standards, and protections against purpose-washing. The industry has welcomed Larsen & Toubro’s announcement of a Rs 500 crore ESG Bond issue, marking it as the first Indian corporation to undertake such an initiative under the newly established SEBI ESG and sustainability-linked bond framework. With the need to strengthen certain aspects including third-party reviews, as implementation progresses, strong enforcement, market awareness, and alignment with international standards will be essential to realising the framework’s full potential.

              3. SEBI’s Closing Auction Session: Legal and Market Fault lines

                SEBI’s Closing Auction Session: Legal and Market Fault lines

                ANISHA AND DEV KUMAWAT, THIRD AND FOURTH- YEAR STUDENTS AT TNNLU, TIRUCHIRAPPALLI

                INTRODUCTION

                The Securities and Exchange Board of India (‘SEBI’) has released a consultation paper on 22 August, 2025, suggesting the commencement of Closing Auction Session (‘CAS’) in the equity share market or stock market. The new framework is not just a reform to the market structure for ameliorating the closing- price integrity rather it has far-reaching implications for Indian securities law and corporate governance. The proposed amendment related to CAS is far more than the statistical closing price for the trading day, as it has paramount implications for the legal and contractual matters, none the less from takeover regulations, delisting thresholds to mutual fund net asset valuations and the determination of settlement obligations. Through this, SEBI is not just affecting the economic framework of the market but also proposing a new regulatory and commercial frameworks by recalibrating on determination of prices.

                To address this issue, this article examines the legal and market issues that are raised by CAS ranging from takeover thresholds, delisting processes mutual fund valuations to its impact on insider trading enforcement and minority shareholder protection. Thus, a comparative analysis has been drawn focusing on its regulatory safeguards and highlighting the opportunities and risks of the proposed framework. Ultimately, it suggests a layered regulatory approach to harmonize SEBI’s twin objectives of accurate price discovery and investor protection through greater transparency, real-time surveillance and protective mechanisms.

                FROM VWAP TO CAS: A STRUCTURAL SHIFT IN PRICE DISCOVERY

                The proposed amendment sharply contrasts with the present method of calculating the price of the stocks for each company i.e. the closing price. Currently, the closing price is calculated from the Volume-Weighted Average Price (‘VWAP’), i.e. the weighted average price of trades that has been executed continuously during the last half an hour. But under the new framework, a dedicated twenty- minute CAS (3:15–3:35 p.m. IST) would be taken into account and the orders would be finalized as per the acceptance, matching and execution of stocks via buying and selling, through a call- auction mechanism. For the first instance, it has been initiated for derivatives eligible (Future & Option Stocks) the highly liquid securities crucial for index and derivatives settlement with possibility of later expansion to wider cash market. This framework is reasoned by SEBI in phased approach on two grounds: firstly, F&O stocks form the backbone of institutional portfolios and are most relevant for index benchmarking; secondly, manipulation risks could be mitigated because of their high liquidity rates.

                The practical effect can be elucidated by a short numeric contrast. Under the current VWAP approach, if a stock trades mostly between ₹100- ₹102 during the day and one among the last few trades transaction is of ₹108, the VWAP may lift modestly to about ₹103.5, thus slightly affecting the Net Asset Value (‘NAV’) and index weights. Now, under the newly introduced framework (CAS), if the 3:00- 3:15 VWAP is ₹101 with ±3% band, then the auction could clear  up to around ₹104. Should a cluster of institutional orders push the clearing price to that level, ₹104 would stand as the official close, determining NAVs, takeover thresholds, and derivative settlements. This change is not minimal as a shift of ₹3-₹4 per share across millions of shares put a lot of effect on wealth transfers between acquirers, minority shareholders and passive investors. This shows how VWAP dilutes the impact of any single trade across an extended period, while on the other hand, CAS magnifies the influence by compressing decisive price formation into a narrow, highly visible window, thus creating  a natural choke point for significant players.

                CLOSING PRICE AS A LEGAL AND MARKET BENCHMARK

                The shift is not just a mere technicality as the closing price acts as the standardized benchmark in securities regulation. For instance, under Regulation 3 of the SEBI (Substantial Acquisition of Shares and Takeovers) Regulations, 2011, open offer which has the mandate of 25% shareholding threshold is calculated with reference to the closing price.  Through this, it protects the minority shareholders in control transactions. Additionally,  Regulation 8 of the SEBI (Delisting of Equity Shares) Regulations, 2021 set the floor for exit consideration in delisting exercises through closing price. Moreover, even mutual fund valuations under Regulation 47 of the SEBI (Mutual Funds) Regulations, 1996  determine the NAV  available to investors through the same. In this sense, the closing price performs a quasi- legal function, extending beyond market mechanics to structure substantive entitlements and liabilities. Any change in the methodology of its discovery, therefore, extends beyond technical microstructure reform like price fluctuations and engages fundamental questions of investor protection and regulatory design. Heavy order flows during the auction period can unduly influence the closing price. This makes it difficult for the small shareholders to counter the influence of large institutional trades.

                One of the most analytical difficulty lies in balancing SEBI’s dual objectives: one being enhancing price accuracy and other being preventing regulatory arbitrage or market distortions. The consultation paper has acknowledged that the closing prices are often subject to marking the close, a practice where traders execute small-volume traders just before the market closes to nudge prices in the desired direction. It has been globally recognized by courts and regulators as a form of market manipulation. The fact has been reinstated in India by the Securities Appellate Tribunal through Regulation 3 of the SEBI (Prohibition of Fraudulent and Unfair Trade Practices) Regulations, 2003 which prohibits manipulative and deceptive devices. While the newly introduced framework of CAS by concentrating liquidity into a single call auction, may diminish the efficacy of last- minute trades, it also creates a new issue related to concentration of large orders to influence the equilibrium price by large players.

                In the context of takeovers, the person holding 25% of company’s shares has to make an open offer to other stakeholders and that price is linked to past closing prices. So, under the new framework, the closing price could be fluctuated either up or down, depending on how big investors place their orders in that short auction window. This advantages the buyer, who is willing to take the risk of bidding aggressively in the CAS. In delisting too, price is influenced by CAS. When such a scenario persists, then prices become more volatile or controlled by the hands of a few large orders, thus leading to unfair exit value of minority shareholders. In the case of SEBI v. Cabot International Capital Corp. (2004), it was held that the main aim of securities law is to protect the investors. It means any change in reduction of fairness for investors in exit processes goes against the principal of investor protection.

                CONCENTRATED ORDERS, MANIPULATION, AND INSIDER RISKS

                Moreover, insider trading regulation is also affected by CAS. Under the SEBI (Prohibition of Insider Trading) Regulations, 2015, material events are reflected in stock prices with the closing price serving as a reference for detecting suspicious trading activities. When the auction price can be influenced by a dominating group of participants, then the casual link between non-public information and price movement becomes harder to establish. This results in weakening of evidentiary foundation of enforcement i.e. without adequate surveillance. If left unchecked, it could undermine the deterrent value of insider trading provisions. For minority investors, the risk is especially acute, as concentrated orders during the auction could distort prices to their disadvantage, undermining the very protections securities law aims to guarantee.

                Comparative jurisprudence like European Union’s Euronext market shows that closing auctions are typically safeguarded by protective mechanism like volatility extensions, real-time extensive prices, and order imbalance disclosures. Even though, the same has been acknowledged by the SEBI’s consultation process but it does not properly consider the operability in India’s context. It is characterized by substantial retail participation, high algorithmic trading activity, and resource- constrained market surveillance. If these safeguards are not incorporated, CAS may unintentionally tilt the market towards institutional investors, thus weakening the legal and fiduciary protections afforded to minority shareholders under the Takeover Code and Delisting Regulations.

                A layered approach is required to address these risks posed by CAS like requiring disclosure of large orders at the time of auction could enhance transparency and would supply regulators with empirical data to monitory systematic risks. Additionally, practices like layering, spoofing and order clustering could be incorporated in the system to protect both market integrity and equitable access as real- time surveillance system. Through the lens of economics, these measures could help reduce price imbalance, thus ensuring minority shareholders rights.

                CONCLUSION

                The proposed CAS marks a structural reorientation in India’s price- discovery framework, with implications that extended far beyond a technical refinement. By concentrating the price formation into a narrow window, potential choke points could be found where the dominant investors get disproportionate influence, raising questions over fairness and investor protection, especially for minority shareholders. SEBI must therefore approach CAS with strong rigorous safeguards, empirical oversight and a commitment to equitable governance, to ensure a balance between the statutory and fiduciary protections that underpins the Indian securities law.

              4. Contractual ‘Non-Use’ Covenants: Plugging the Shadow-Trading Gap

                Contractual ‘Non-Use’ Covenants: Plugging the Shadow-Trading Gap

                Aditya Singh, THIRD- Year Student, Rajiv Gandhi National University of Law, Punjab

                INTRODUCTION

                The successful prosecution in Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) v. Panuwat has introduced “shadow trading” as a novel enforcement concept for securities regulators. While India is yet to confront a concrete instance of shadow trading and its cognizance by Securities and Exchange Board of India (‘SEBI’), the U.S. experience highlights a potential lacuna in domestic regulations. Under SEBI’s current framework, insiders face civil liability only when trading in the stock of the very issuer, whose Unpublished Price-Sensitive Information (‘UPSI’) -they possess, and SEBI must prove both that the information “likely to materially affect” a particular security and that the insider used it with profit motive. The application of the shadow-trading principle domestically would therefore demand a framework which captures UPSI-driven trades beyond the issuer’s own stock, without becoming entangled in intricate economic-linkage or intent inquiries.

                This piece shows how India can strengthen its insider-trading regime by requiring all “designated persons” to pre-commit—via an expanded Code of Conduct—to refrain from using any UPSI for profit, and then empowering SEBI to invoke misappropriation principles against any breach. It begins by defining “shadow trading,” contrasts the classical and misappropriation theories, and then sets out the covenant-plus-notice proposal and its statutory foundation. The piece goes on to address proportionality and practical objections before concluding with implementation steps.


                THE SHADOW-TRADING PUZZLE

                Scholars have defined shadow trading as – when private information held by insiders can also be relevant for economically-linked firms and exploited to facilitate profitable trading in those firms. In SEC v. Panuwat, the U.S. District Court for Northern California confronted a novel fact pattern: Matthew Panuwat, a Senior Director at Medivation, received a confidential email revealing Pfizer’s imminent acquisition of Medivation. Rather than trading Medivation stock, he bought shares of Incyte—a competitor whose share price would rise on news of the Medivation deal.

                On the anvils of misappropriation theory, it was held that Panuwat’s breach of Medivation’s insider trading policy which expansively prohibited trading (while in possession of Medivation’s inside information) in not only Medivation’s securities, but arguably in any publicly traded securities in which Medivation’s inside information would give its insiders an investing edge. This fiduciary duty to Medivation—gave rise to insider-trading liability, even though he never traded Medivation securities. In rejecting Panuwat’s argument that liability requires trading in the issuer whose information is misused, the court emphasized that “misappropriation of confidential information for trading any economically linked security” falls within the scope of securities fraud under Rule 10b-5.

                The above discussion necessitates understanding 2 main principles behind insider trading. Under the classical model, insider-trading liability arises when an insider breaches a fiduciary duty by trading in the issuer’s own securities. By contrast, misappropriation theory treats any breach of duty to the source of confidential information as actionable; and India has consistently adhered to the classical approach.

                POSSIBLE IMPLEMENTATION IN INDIA THROUGH EXPANSIVE INTERPRETATION

                While the market-protection, investor-equity, and price-discovery rationales behind the prohibition of insider trading have been extensively examined by scholars, those same principles equally justify a similar regulatory approach to shadow trading, which is effectively an extension of insider trading itself.

                An interpretative reading of the SEBI (Prohibition of Insider Trading) Regulations, 2015 (‘PIT Regulations’), can be used for the domestic application of shadow trading . Regulation 2(1)(n) defines UPSI as any information “directly or indirectly” relating to a company’s securities that is “likely to materially affect” their price. The qualifier “indirectly” can thus for instance bring within UPSI material non-public information about Company A that predictably moves Company B’s shares due to their economic linkage. Indian tribunals have already endorsed expansive readings (see FCRPL v SEBI).  Likewise, the definition of “Insider” under Regulation 2(1)(g) encapsulates anyone who “has access to” UPSI. Once that information is used to trade Company B’s securities, the trader effectively becomes an “insider” of Company B.

                However, relying solely on this interpretative route raises a host of practical and doctrinal difficulties. The next section examines the key obstacles that would complicate SEBI’s attempt to enforce shadow‐trading liability under the existing PIT framework.

                CHALLENGES TO IMPLEMENTATION

                Key implementation challenges are as follows:

                No clear test for “indirect” links: Using “indirectly” as a qualifier posits the problem that no benchmark exists to determine how tenuous an economic link between two entities may be. Is a 5 % revenue dependence enough? Does a 1% index weight qualify? Without clear criteria, every “indirect” claim becomes a bespoke debate over company correlations in the market.

                Heavy proof of price impact: To show UPSI would “likely materially affect” a non-source instrument, SEBI and insiders can each hire economists/experts to argue over whether UPSI about Company A truly “likely materially affects” Company B’s price. Disputes over timeframes, statistical tests, and which market indicators to use would turn every shadow-trading case into an endless technical showdown.

                Uncertain Profit-Motive Standards: Courts already grapple with an implicit profit-motive requirement that the PIT Regulations do not explicitly mandate—a problem Girjesh Shukla and Aditi Dehal discuss at length in their paper—adding an ambiguous intent element and uncertain evidentiary burden. In shadow‐trading cases, where insiders can spread trades across stocks, bonds or derivatives, this uncertainty multiplies and is compounded by the undefined “indirect” linkage test and the need for complex price impact proofs as outlined above.

                THE CONTRACTUAL “NON-USE” COVENANT AND IMPORT OF MISAPPROPRIATION THEORY

                The author argues here that, despite there being many ways through legislative action to solve the problem, the quickest and most effective solution to this problem would be through an import of Misappropriation theory.

                This can be done by leveraging SEBI’s existing requirement for written insider-trading codes. Regulation 9(1) of the PIT Regulations mandates that every listed company adopt a Code of Conduct for its “designated persons,” incorporating the minimum standards of Schedule B, with a designated Compliance Officer to administer it under Regulation 9(3).

                Building on this foundation, SEBI could introduce a requirement to each Code to include a “Non-Use of UPSI for Profit” covenant, under which every insider expressly agrees to (a) abstain from trading in any security or financial instrument while in possession of UPSI, except where a safe-harbour expressly applies, (b) accept that a formal “UPSI Notice” serves as conclusive proof of materiality, obviating the need for SEBI—or any adjudicator—to conduct fresh event studies or call expert testimony on price impact and (c) Safe-harbour provision: extent to which trades can be made, to be determined/formulated by SEBI from time to time. Section 30 of the SEBI Act, 1992 authorises the Board to make regulations to carry out the purposes of this Act, thereby making the addition procedurally valid as well. It is important to note here that this covenant works alongside SEBI’s trading-window rules under PIT Regulations: insiders must honour the temporary ban on trading whenever they hold UPSI.

                Time-bound blackouts are already standard: EU MAR Article 19 enforces a 30-day pre-results trading freeze, and India’s PIT Regulations enforces trade freeze during trading window closures. This covenant simply extends that familiar blackout to cover any UPSI capable of moving related securities to adapt to evolving loopholes in information asymmetry enforcement.

                Under this covenant structure, SEBI’s enforcement simplifies to three unambiguous steps:

                1. UPSI Certification: The company’s board or its designated UPSI Committee issues a written “UPSI Notice,” categorising the information under pre-defined, per se material events (financial results, M&A approvals, rating actions, major contracts, etc.).
                2. Duty Evidence: The insider’s signed covenant confirms a clear contractual duty not to trade on UPSI and to treat the Board’s certification as definitive.
                3. Trade Verification: Any trade in a covered instrument executed after the UPSI Notice automatically constitutes a breach of duty under misappropriation theory—SEBI needs only to show the notice, the covenant and the subsequent transaction.

                To avoid unduly rigid freezes, the covenant would operate as a rebuttable presumption: any trade executed after a UPSI Notice is prima facie violative unless the insider demonstrates (i) a bona-fide, UPSI-independent rationale or; (ii) eligibility under a defined safe-harbour.

                The import of the misappropriation theory will help execute this solution, that is to say, as soon as this covenant is breached it would be a breach of duty to the information’s source, triggering the insider trading regulation through the misappropriation principle.

                The misappropriation theory can be embedded in the PIT regulations through an amendment to the Regulation 4 by SEBI to read, in effect:

                4(1A). “No Insider shall misappropriate UPSI in breach of a contractual or fiduciary duty of confidentiality (including under any Company Code of Conduct) and trade on that information in any security or financial instrument.”

                The blanket restraint on trading engages Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution but survives the four-part proportionality test articulated in Modern Dental College & Research Centre v State of MP and applied to financial regulation in Internet & Mobile Association of India v RBI.

                WHY NOT A FACTOR-BASED TEST?

                An alternative approach,  advocates for a similar factor based test to determine “abuse of dominant position” by antitrust regulators to be adopted to the PIT regulations to determine cognizable economic linkage. Under this model, SEBI would assess a mix of metrics to decide when Company A’s UPSI is “economically linked” enough to Company B’s securities to trigger liability.

                However, the author argues that the covenant-based approach would be more effective. Unlike a factor-based linkage regime, which demands constant recalibration of revenue shares, index weights and supply-chain ties; fuels expert-driven litigation over chosen metrics and look-back windows; produces unpredictable, case-by-case outcomes; imposes heavy database and pre-clearance burdens; and leaves insiders free to game the latest matrices—the covenant-plus-misappropriation model skips the entire exercise as relies on one clear rule: no trading on UPSI. SEBI’s job becomes simply to confirm three things: the insider signed the promise, the information was certified as UPSI, and a trade took place afterward. This single-step check delivers legal certainty, slashes compliance burdens, and sharply boosts deterrence without ever reopening the question of how “indirectly” two companies are linked.

                CONCLUSION

                The covenant-plus-misappropriation framework streamlines enforcement, preserves SEBI’s materiality standard, and leverages existing Code-of-Conduct machinery—allowing rapid roll-out without new legislation. However, its success depends on corporate buy-in and consistent compliance-monitoring: companies must integrate covenant execution into their governance processes, and SEBI will still need robust surveillance to detect breaches. Therefore, SEBI should publish a consultation paper and pilot the covenant with select large-cap companies
                to identify practical challenges before a market-wide rollout.

              5. 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. 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.