Introduction

The Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) enacted the Underwriters Regulations in 1993 to establish a comprehensive regulatory framework for entities that provide underwriting services for securities in public offerings. These regulations emerged as part of SEBI’s broader mandate to develop India’s primary markets while protecting investor interests. Underwriting, as a market function, serves the critical purpose of mitigating issuance risk by providing assurance that public offerings will raise the intended capital regardless of market reception. Underwriters commit to purchasing unsubscribed portions of issues, thereby providing certainty to issuers while simultaneously serving as gatekeepers who conduct due diligence on offering quality. By creating a structured regulatory regime for underwriters, the SEBI (Underwriters) Regulations 1993 aimed to establish professional standards, ensure financial capacity for meeting underwriting commitments, and promote ethical practices in an activity central to primary market integrity. The regulations recognized that effective underwriting was essential not only for individual issuance success but for broader market development and investor confidence in the capital formation process.

Historical Context and Legislative Evolution of SEBI (Underwriters) Regulations

The SEBI (Underwriters) Regulations emerged during the formative period of India’s securities market reforms in the early 1990s. Prior to these regulations, underwriting activities were conducted without specialized regulatory oversight, creating inconsistent practices, unclear standards, and uncertain commitments. The market liberalization following the 1991 economic reforms led to a surge in public offerings, highlighting the need for a robust regulatory framework for underwriting services.

The regulations were promulgated under Section 30 of the SEBI Act, 1992, which empowers SEBI to make regulations consistent with the Act. Their introduction coincided with a period of significant primary market activity, with numerous companies accessing public markets for the first time. This created an imperative for professionalized underwriting services to support market development while maintaining appropriate standards.

Over the years, these regulations have evolved through several amendments:

1. The original SEBI (Underwriters) Regulations, 1993 established the basic registration framework and operational standards.
2. The 2006 amendments enhanced capital adequacy requirements and clarified obligations.
3. The 2011 revisions strengthened the governance framework and updated operational standards.
4. The 2017 amendments refined disclosure requirements and modernized underwriting practices.

While the core regulatory framework has remained relatively stable, SEBI has issued numerous circulars and guidelines that have substantially evolved underwriting practices beyond the original regulatory text. These have addressed issues including pricing methodologies, green shoe options, anchor investors, and the role of underwriters in different offering structures such as book-built issues, qualified institutional placements, and rights offerings.

The most significant evolution in underwriting practices has occurred through changes in the broader primary market framework rather than through direct amendments to the Underwriters Regulations themselves. The introduction of book building in the late 1990s, the development of anchor investor mechanisms in the 2000s, and the recent emergence of specialized offering formats for different issuer categories have all transformed underwriting practices while operating within the fundamental regulatory architecture established by these regulations.

Underwriters’ Registration & Eligibility under SEBI Regulations

Chapter II: SEBI Registration Framework for Underwriters

Chapter II of the regulations establishes the registration requirements for underwriters. Regulation 3 states:

“No person shall act as underwriter unless he holds a certificate granted by the Board under these regulations:

Provided that a merchant banker who has been granted a certificate of registration to act as a merchant banker may act as underwriter without obtaining a separate certificate under these regulations.”

This provision establishes SEBI’s regulatory authority over underwriters while creating an important carve-out for registered merchant bankers, recognizing the natural alignment between merchant banking and underwriting functions.

Eligibility Criteria for Underwriters under SEBI Regulations

Regulation 6 outlines the comprehensive eligibility criteria for registration:

“The Board shall not grant a certificate to an applicant unless: (a) the applicant is a body corporate other than a non-banking financial company; (b) the applicant has the necessary infrastructure like adequate office space, equipment and manpower to effectively discharge his activities; (c) the applicant, his directors or partners, as the case may be, are persons of integrity with adequate professional qualification and experience in underwriting or in the business of buying, selling or dealing in securities; (d) the applicant fulfils the capital adequacy requirements specified in regulation 7; (e) the applicant, his director, partner or principal officer is not involved in any litigation connected with the securities market which has an adverse bearing on the business of the applicant; (f) the applicant, his director, partner or principal officer has not at any time been convicted for any offence involving moral turpitude or has been found guilty of any economic offence; (g) the applicant has no past record of repeated defaults in meeting underwriting commitments.”

These eligibility requirements reflect the significant financial and market responsibilities borne by underwriters, with emphasis on integrity, professional qualification, and infrastructure capability.

Capital Adequacy Norms for SEBI-Registered Underwriters

Regulation 7 establishes critical capital adequacy requirements:

“The capital adequacy requirement referred to in regulation 6 shall not be less than the net worth of rupees twenty lakhs:

Provided that a merchant banker deemed to be an underwriter under these regulations, shall have a networth of rupees five crores.”

This significant capital requirement (Rs. 20 lakhs for dedicated underwriters and Rs. 5 crores for merchant bankers acting as underwriters) ensures that underwriters have sufficient financial capacity to meet their potential obligations in case of issue devolvement. The substantially higher requirement for merchant bankers reflects their broader role in the primary market and the typically larger offerings they underwrite.

Application & Evaluation of Underwriters under SEBI Regulations

Regulations 4-8 establish a comprehensive application and evaluation process:

1. Detailed application containing information about organizational structure, financial resources, and underwriting experience
2. Due diligence of key personnel to ensure integrity and professional competence
3. Assessment of financial capacity to meet potential underwriting commitments
4. Evaluation of infrastructure for risk assessment and management
5. Review of past underwriting performance and commitment fulfillment

Upon successful evaluation, SEBI grants a certificate of registration, valid for three years and subject to renewal. This structured entry screening ensures that only qualified entities with appropriate resources and professional capabilities can function as underwriters.

General Obligations and Responsibilities of Underwriters under SEBI Regulations

Chapter III: Core Obligations for Underwriters

Chapter III establishes fundamental obligations for underwriters. Regulation 12 mandates:

“(1) No underwriter shall derive any direct or indirect benefit from underwriting the issue other than the commission or brokerage payable under the agreement for underwriting.

(2) The total underwriting obligations at any time shall not exceed 20 times the net worth of the underwriter.

(3) Every underwriter shall submit to the Board half-yearly reports about the underwriting activity undertaken and the underwriting obligations discharged.”

These core provisions establish critical safeguards:

1. The prohibition against benefits beyond specified commission prevents conflicts of interest and undisclosed arrangements.
2. The leverage limit of 20 times net worth creates a prudential ceiling on total commitments relative to financial capacity.
3. The regular reporting requirement enables regulatory monitoring of underwriting activity and potential systemic risk.

SEBI Regulations on Underwriting Agreements

Regulation 13 establishes requirements for underwriting agreements:

“(1) Every underwriter shall enter into an agreement with the body corporate on whose behalf he is acting as underwriter. (2) The agreement shall, among other things, provide for the following: (a) the period within which the underwriter shall subscribe to the issue after being intimated by or on behalf of such body corporate; (b) the amount of commission or brokerage payable to the underwriter; (c) the amount which the underwriter has to subscribe to or procure subscriptions for.”

This requirement ensures clarity regarding the underwriter’s commitments and compensation, preventing ambiguity that could lead to disputes or default on obligations.

SEBI Regulations on Underwriters Code of Conduct   

Schedule III contains a detailed code of conduct for underwriters. Key provisions include:

1. Maintaining high standards of integrity, dignity, and fairness in all dealings
2. Conducting appropriate due diligence on issues being underwritten
3. Maintaining independence and objectivity in underwriting decisions
4. Disclosing potential conflicts of interest to issuers and investors
5. Honoring underwriting commitments without delay when devolvement occurs
6. Cooperating with other underwriters and market participants

These ethical standards complement the operational requirements, creating a comprehensive framework for underwriter behavior.

Significant Court Decisions on SEBI Underwriters Regulations

SBI Capital Markets v. SEBI (2009)

This SAT appeal addressed the fundamental nature of underwriting obligations. SBI Capital Markets had challenged SEBI’s order regarding failure to fulfill underwriting commitments in a public issue. The tribunal’s judgment established:

“The underwriting obligation represents a firm commitment rather than a best-efforts arrangement, creating a legally binding obligation to subscribe to unsubscribed portions of an issue when devolvement occurs. This commitment forms the essence of underwriting as a market function, providing certainty to issuers regarding capital raising while serving as a signal of issue quality to potential investors.

The timing requirement for fulfilling underwriting obligations upon devolvement is substantive rather than merely procedural. Prompt fulfillment is essential not merely for regulatory compliance but for maintaining market integrity and issuer financial planning. Delays in meeting underwriting commitments, even when eventually fulfilled, constitute a regulatory violation that undermines the underwriting function.

The evaluation of whether market conditions constitute ‘force majeure’ sufficient to excuse underwriting obligations must be interpreted narrowly, with normal market volatility not qualifying as an excuse for non-fulfillment. The purpose of underwriting is precisely to protect issuers against adverse market conditions, making market downturns an anticipated risk that underwriters must be prepared to absorb rather than an excuse for non-performance.”

This judgment clarified that underwriting creates firm legal commitments that must be honored promptly regardless of market conditions, reinforcing the crucial risk-absorption function of underwriters in the primary market.

Kotak Mahindra Capital v. SEBI (2015)

This case focused on due diligence standards for underwriters. Kotak had challenged SEBI’s interpretation regarding the scope of due diligence requirements. The SAT judgment noted:

“The due diligence obligation of underwriters extends beyond mere verification of legal compliance to substantive evaluation of offering quality and risk. As entities putting their capital at risk through underwriting commitments while simultaneously providing implicit endorsement of issues to the investing public, underwriters must conduct thorough, independent assessment of fundamental business quality, valuation appropriateness, and disclosure adequacy.

This diligence obligation includes: (a) reasonable verification of material statements in offer documents; (b) independent assessment of business model viability and growth projections; (c) evaluation of valuation metrics against industry benchmarks and financial fundamentals; (d) verification of risk factor completeness and accuracy; and (e) assessment of management quality and corporate governance standards.

While underwriters may rely on expert opinions and issuer representations for specialized technical matters, they cannot abdicate their fundamental responsibility to form an independent judgment regarding offering quality. The underwriter’s role as both financial guarantor and market gatekeeper creates a dual responsibility requiring substantive rather than merely procedural diligence.”

This judgment established that underwriters bear significant responsibility for substantive evaluation of offerings beyond mere procedural verification, reflecting their dual role as financial guarantors and market gatekeepers.

ICICI Securities v. SEBI (2017)

This case addressed devolvement responsibilities in consortium underwriting arrangements. ICICI Securities had challenged SEBI’s interpretation regarding obligations in a multi-underwriter offering. The tribunal held:

“In consortium underwriting arrangements, each underwriter bears several rather than joint responsibility for their committed portion, with devolvement occurring proportionately among consortium members based on their commitment percentages. However, this several responsibility does not diminish the absolute nature of each underwriter’s obligation to fulfill their proportionate commitment when devolvement occurs.

The lead underwriter bears additional coordination responsibilities including: (a) ensuring clarity regarding each consortium member’s commitment; (b) establishing clear procedures for determining and communicating devolvement; (c) maintaining appropriate documentation of consortium arrangements; and (d) monitoring consortium member compliance with commitments.

The contractual arrangements between consortium members cannot modify or diminish the regulatory obligations each underwriter bears toward the issuer and the market. Private arrangements for risk sharing or indemnification between underwriters do not affect their regulatory obligation to fulfill devolvement commitments.”

This judgment clarified the nature of obligations in consortium underwriting, establishing that while responsibility is proportionate to commitment, each underwriter bears absolute responsibility for their portion regardless of consortium arrangements.

Market Practices and Evolution of Underwriting Practices

The underwriting landscape has evolved significantly since the regulations were introduced:

Changing Underwriting Models

Underwriting practices have transformed through several distinct phases:

1. Traditional Firm Commitment (1993-1998): Initial underwriting practices involved straightforward firm commitments to purchase unsubscribed portions of fixed-price issues, with substantial risk of devolvement in an underdeveloped market.
   
2. Book Building Transition (1999-2005): The introduction of book building reduced traditional underwriting risk by allowing price discovery, but underwriters continued to provide backstop commitments for portions not subscribed through the book building process.
   
3. Anchor Investor Era (2006-2015): The introduction of anchor investors who make substantial pre-IPO commitments further reduced traditional underwriting risk, with underwriters facilitating anchor participation while maintaining formal underwriting commitments.
   
4. Contemporary Hybrid Model (2016-present): Current practices involve sophisticated coordination of different investor categories including qualified institutional buyers, non-institutional investors, retail investors, and employees, with underwriting commitments structured to address potential shortfalls in specific categories.
   

This evolution of SEBI (Underwriters) Regulations 1993 reflects both market maturation and regulatory adaptation, with underwriting practices becoming more sophisticated and specialized over time.

Risk Assessment Methodologies

Underwriting risk assessment has similarly evolved:

1. Initial Approaches (1993-2000): Early SEBI (Underwriters) Regulations 1993-2000 underwriting relied heavily on historical precedent, basic financial analysis, and subjective judgment regarding market conditions and issuer quality.
   
2. Quantitative Enhancement (2001-2010): Growing emphasis on quantitative models incorporating market volatility metrics, subscription pattern analysis from comparable offerings, and more sophisticated financial projection evaluation.
   
3. Big Data Integration (2011-present): Contemporary approaches incorporate alternative data sources, sophisticated investor behavior analytics, social media sentiment analysis, and machine learning algorithms to predict subscription patterns and underwriting risk.
   

This methodological evolution has both reduced underwriting risk and enhanced pricing efficiency, contributing to more successful offerings with appropriate risk allocation.

Market Participants

The underwriting market structure has transformed substantially:

1. Consolidation: The market has consolidated from numerous small players to a smaller number of well-capitalized entities, particularly bank-affiliated investment banking operations with substantial capital backing.
   
2. International Integration: Global investment banks have established significant presence in Indian underwriting markets, bringing international methodologies and investor networks while adapting to local regulatory requirements.
   
3. Specialization: Some underwriters have developed sector-specific expertise in areas like technology, healthcare, financial services, or infrastructure, allowing more sophisticated risk assessment in these specialized domains.
   
4. Domestic-International Collaboration: Joint underwriting arrangements between domestic and international firms have become common, combining local market knowledge with global distribution capabilities.
   

This evolving market structure reflects both competitive dynamics and regulatory influence, with capital requirements and performance standards driving consolidation toward more sophisticated and well-resourced entities.

Challenges and Future Trends in SEBI Underwriter Framework

Despite significant progress, several challenges remain in the SEBI (Underwriters) Regulations 1993 framework:

Risk Assessment Standardization

Underwriting risk assessment practices continue to vary significantly:

1. Methodological Divergence: Wide variation in risk assessment approaches creates inconsistency in underwriting quality and commitment reliability across market participants.
   
2. Disclosure Limitations: Incomplete disclosure of underwriting risk assessment methodologies limits issuer and investor ability to evaluate underwriter quality and approach.
   
3. Technology Gap: Varying levels of technological sophistication create disparities in risk assessment capability, with some underwriters utilizing advanced analytics while others rely on more traditional approaches.
   

Recent regulatory discussions have explored potential standardization of minimum requirements for underwriting risk assessment methodologies, disclosure of approach, and technological capabilities.

Pricing Mechanisms

Underwriting pricing continues to face challenges:

1. Transparency Issues: Limited transparency regarding underwriting commission determination creates challenges for issuers in evaluating value and comparing offerings.
   
2. Risk-Pricing Alignment: Ensuring appropriate alignment between underwriting risk and compensation remains challenging, particularly in innovative or hard-to-value offerings.
   
3. Competition Concerns: Concentration in the underwriting market raises questions about competitive pricing and potential for implicit coordination.
   

Regulatory initiatives have increasingly focused on enhancing pricing transparency and promoting competitive dynamics in underwriting services.

New Offering Structures

Evolving offering structures create new underwriting challenges:

1. Direct Listings: The emergence of direct listings without traditional underwritten offerings raises questions about market quality and investor protection in the absence of traditional underwriter roles.
   
2. Special Purpose Acquisition Companies (SPACs): SPAC structures create unique underwriting considerations regarding sponsor quality, target acquisition potential, and investor protection mechanisms.
   
3. Differentiated Voting Rights: Dual-class share structures and other differentiated voting arrangements create complex valuation and risk assessment challenges for underwriters.
   
4. ESG-Focused Offerings: Environmentally and socially focused offerings require specialized underwriting expertise to evaluate non-financial metrics and risks.
   

Regulatory frameworks may need adaptation to address these innovative structures while maintaining core investor protection principles.

Future Growth Directions for Underwriting Regulation

Looking forward, several trends are likely to shape underwriting evolution:

Technology Integration

Technological advancement offers significant potential for underwriting enhancement:

1. Artificial Intelligence: Machine learning applications for subscription prediction, pricing optimization, and risk assessment show significant promise for reducing underwriting risk while enhancing offering success.
   
2. Blockchain Applications: Distributed ledger technology offers potential for more efficient underwriting consortium management, transparent commitment tracking, and streamlined settlement of devolvement obligations.
   
3. Alternative Data Integration: Non-traditional data sources including social media sentiment, web traffic patterns, and consumption metrics provide new insights for underwriting risk assessment.
   
4. Automated Compliance: Technology-driven compliance verification can enhance due diligence effectiveness while reducing costs and timeframes.

While regulatory frameworks have not yet specifically addressed these technological applications, growing interest suggests potential for formal guidance or standards in the future.

Global Harmonization

International integration creates pressure for greater cross-border consistency:

1. Due Diligence Standards: Increasing alignment of Indian underwriting due diligence standards with global practices, particularly regarding verification procedures and documentation.
   
2. Risk Management Approaches: Adoption of internationally recognized risk management frameworks for underwriting commitments.
   
3. Disclosure Harmonization: Movement toward internationally consistent disclosure standards for underwritten offerings to facilitate cross-border investment.
   
4. Liability Frameworks: Evolution toward greater consistency with global standards regarding underwriter liability and defenses.
   

This harmonization reflects both the globalization of capital markets and the increasing participation of international firms in Indian underwriting activities.

ESG Integration

Environmental, social, and governance considerations increasingly impact underwriting:

1. ESG Due Diligence: Integration of ESG risk assessment into core underwriting due diligence frameworks.
   
2. Impact Measurement: Development of methodologies for evaluating and disclosing social and environmental impact in underwritten offerings.
   
3. Sustainability-Linked Pricing: Emergence of underwriting structures with pricing linked to sustainability metrics and targets.
   
4. Climate Risk Assessment: Specialized evaluation of climate-related transition and physical risks as core components of underwriting risk assessment.
   

While current regulations do not explicitly address ESG considerations in underwriting, growing market focus suggests likely regulatory attention in coming years.

Conclusion  

The SEBI (Underwriters) Regulations, 1993, have established a comprehensive framework for a critical capital market function that directly impacts issuer funding success and investor protection. From their introduction during the early reform period of India’s capital markets through multiple adaptations addressing evolving offering structures and market practices, these regulations have maintained focus on the fundamental objectives of ensuring underwriting capacity, commitment reliability, and ethical conduct.

The evolution from straightforward firm commitment underwriting to sophisticated hybrid models incorporating book building, anchor investors, and differentiated investor categories illustrates the adaptability of principles-based regulation. While core regulatory objectives remained consistent, the interpretation and implementation of these principles evolved with market structure and practice sophistication, guided by judicial interpretations that emphasized the substantive nature of underwriting obligations and due diligence responsibilities.

As India’s capital markets continue to evolve in sophistication, international integration, and technological capability, the underwriting regulatory framework will face ongoing challenges requiring further adaptation. New offering structures, technological innovation, and evolving investor expectations will necessitate continued regulatory evolution balancing capital formation facilitation with investor protection.

The SEBI (Underwriters) Regulations, 1993 demonstrate SEBI’s approach to market intermediary regulation – establishing necessary standards and accountability mechanisms while allowing market evolution and practice innovation. This balanced approach has supported the transformation of India’s primary markets while maintaining focus on the fundamental objectives of capital formation, market integrity, and investor protection.

References

1. Agarwal, R., & Singh, V. (2021). Underwriting in Indian Capital Markets: Regulatory Framework and Market Evolution. Journal of Securities Law, 17(2), 142-159.
2. Balasubramanian, N., & Anand, M. (2019). Book Building and Underwriting in India: Historical Evolution and Market Practices. Indian Journal of Corporate Governance, 12(1), 78-94.
3. Chandrasekhar, S., & Ray, S. (2020). Underwriter Due Diligence: Comparative Analysis of Indian and Global Standards. Securities Market Journal, 9(3), 67-83.
4. Das, P., & Kumar, A. (2018). Pricing of Underwriting Services in Indian IPOs: Empirical Analysis and Regulatory Implications. NSE Working Paper Series, No. WP-37.
5. ICICI Securities v. SEBI, Appeal No. 214 of 2017, Securities Appellate Tribunal (September 12, 2017).
6. Jain, R., & Sharma, N. (2016). Underwriter Reputation and IPO Performance: Evidence from the Indian Market. Journal of Financial Markets, 12(3), 126-148.
7. Kotak Mahindra Capital v. SEBI, Appeal No. 193 of 2015, Securities Appellate Tribunal (November 19, 2015).
8. Ministry of Finance. (2015). Report of the Financial Sector Legislative Reforms Commission. Government of India, New Delhi.
9. Patil, R., & Venkatesh, S. (2022). Technology Transformation in Underwriting Practices: Opportunities and Regulatory Challenges. Journal of Financial Technology, 5(2), 112-129.
10. SBI Capital Markets v. SEBI, Appeal No. 157 of 2009, Securities Appellate Tribunal (July 23, 2009).
11. Securities and Exchange Board of India. (1993). SEBI (Underwriters) Regulations, 1993. Gazette of India, Part III, Section 4.
12. Securities and Exchange Board of India. (2018). Report of the Working Group on Primary Market Reforms. SEBI, Mumbai.
13. Shah, A., & Thomas, S. (2012). The Evolution of India’s Capital Markets: A Historical Perspective. In K. Basu & A. Maertens (Eds.), The New Oxford Companion to Economics in India (pp. 76-81). Oxford University Press.
14. Venkatesh, S., & Ganguli, S. (2017). Underpricing and Underwriter Reputation: Evidence from Indian IPO Market. Vision: The Journal of Business Perspective, 21(2), 172-185.
15. World Bank. (2020). Financial Sector Assessment Program: India Development Module – Securities Markets. World Bank Group, Washington, DC. 

The post SEBI (Underwriters) Regulations 1993: Risk Mitigation and Primary Market Development appeared first on Bhatt & Joshi Associates.

Introduction

The Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) enacted the Prohibition of Fraudulent and Unfair Trade Practices (PFUTP) Regulations in 2003 to address growing concerns regarding market manipulation and fraudulent activities in India’s securities markets. These regulations represented a significant evolution from the earlier 1995 regulations and were formulated in response to several high-profile market manipulation cases that had eroded investor confidence. The SEBI PFUTP Regulations 2003 establish a comprehensive framework that defines fraud, prohibits specific manipulative activities, and empowers SEBI with robust enforcement mechanisms to maintain market integrity.

Historical Context and Evolution

The PFUTP Regulations were introduced at a crucial juncture in India’s financial market development. Following the securities scam of 1992 and subsequent market manipulation incidents in the late 1990s, the need for stronger anti-fraud provisions became apparent. The 2003 regulations substantially expanded the scope of the previous framework to address sophisticated forms of market manipulation emerging in an increasingly electronic trading environment.

Over the years, these regulations have undergone several amendments to address new challenges and manipulation techniques. Notable amendments include the 2008 revision that strengthened the definition of fraud and the 2018 amendment that incorporated provisions to address algorithmic trading manipulation.

Key Regulatory Provisions of SEBI PFUTP Regulations 2003

Definition of Fraud

Regulation 2(1)(c) provides an expansive definition of fraud that covers various deceptive practices in the securities market. The definition states:

“Fraud includes any act, expression, omission or concealment committed whether in a deceitful manner or not by a person or by any other person with his connivance or by his agent while dealing in securities in order to induce another person or his agent to deal in securities, whether or not there is any wrongful gain or avoidance of any loss, and shall also include—

(1) a knowing misrepresentation of the truth or concealment of material fact in order that another person may act to his detriment; (2) a suggestion as to a fact which is not true by one who does not believe it to be true; (3) an active concealment of a fact by a person having knowledge or belief of the fact; (4) a promise made without any intention of performing it; (5) a representation made in a reckless and careless manner whether it be true or false; (6) any such act or omission as any other law specifically declares to be fraudulent; (7) deceptive behavior by a person depriving another of informed consent or full participation; (8) a false statement made without reasonable ground for believing it to be true; (9) the act of an issuer of securities giving out misinformation that affects the market price of the security, resulting in investors being effectively misled even though they did not rely on the statement itself or anything derived from it other than the market price.”

This comprehensive definition demonstrates SEBI’s intention to cast a wide net in capturing various forms of market deception.

Prohibited Activities

The core prohibitions are contained in Regulations 3, 4, and 5.

Regulation 3 prohibits dealing in securities in a fraudulent manner and encompasses activities like creating false market appearance, price manipulation, and publishing misleading information.

Regulation 4 specifically addresses market manipulation, benchmark manipulation, and misuse of price-sensitive information. It states:

“No person shall— (a) buy, sell or otherwise deal in securities in a fraudulent manner; (b) use or employ, in connection with issue, purchase or sale of any security listed or proposed to be listed in a recognized stock exchange, any manipulative or deceptive device or contrivance in contravention of the provisions of the Act or the rules or the regulations made thereunder; (c) employ any device, scheme or artifice to defraud in connection with dealing in or issue of securities which are listed or proposed to be listed on a recognized stock exchange; (d) engage in any act, practice, course of business which operates or would operate as fraud or deceit upon any person in connection with any dealing in or issue of securities which are listed or proposed to be listed on a recognized stock exchange in contravention of the provisions of the Act or the rules and the regulations made thereunder.”

Regulation 5 prohibits unfair trade practices related to securities, including artificially influencing securities prices, trading without intention of change in beneficial ownership, and spreading false information to induce securities transactions.

Investigation and Enforcement

Chapter III of the regulations outlines SEBI’s investigative powers. Regulation 8 empowers SEBI to appoint investigating authorities to examine suspected violations. These authorities can:

• Require any person connected with the securities market to furnish relevant information
• Order production of books, registers, and other documents
• Summon and enforce attendance of persons
• Examine witnesses under oath

The investigation process culminates in a report submitted to SEBI, which forms the basis for subsequent enforcement actions.

Penalties and Sanctions

Chapter IV details the penalties and sanctions. Regulation 11 allows SEBI to issue directions including:

• Suspending trading of specific securities
• Restraining persons from accessing the securities market
• Impounding unlawful gains
• Directing disgorgement of wrongfully obtained money
• Imposing monetary penalties as specified under Section 15HA of the SEBI Act

The quantum of monetary penalties can be substantial, with Section 15HA allowing for penalties up to ₹25 crore or three times the amount of profits made from such practices, whichever is higher.

Landmark Judicial Interpretations

Ketan Parekh v. SEBI (2006)

In this seminal case, the Supreme Court established critical standards for identifying market manipulation. Ketan Parekh engaged in circular trading and price manipulation in certain stocks, creating artificial market activity. The Court held that manipulation could be proven through circumstantial evidence and trading patterns, not necessarily requiring direct evidence of intent. The judgment stated:

“Market manipulation is a deliberate attempt to interfere with the free and fair operation of the market and create artificial, false or misleading appearances with respect to the price of, or market for, a security. The question of manipulation ultimately turns on whether the transaction under scrutiny was intended to create a false impression of market activity.”

This judgment significantly expanded SEBI’s ability to prove manipulation through trading pattern analysis.

Satyam Computer Services v. SEBI (2014)

This SAT appeal followed the massive corporate fraud at Satyam Computer Services. The tribunal established standards for corporate fraud under the PFUTP framework, holding that directors and key management personnel could be held liable for accounting fraud that impacts securities prices. The tribunal emphasized:

“When corporate entities make false or misleading statements in their financial statements that materially impact securities prices, such actions squarely fall within the ambit of Regulation 4(2)(f) and (k) of the PFUTP Regulations. Corporate fraud is not merely an accounting issue but a securities fraud issue when it impacts market prices.”

Vijay Mallya v. SEBI (2017)

In this case involving United Spirits Limited, the SAT established important standards regarding disclosure fraud. The tribunal held that selective disclosure and concealment of material information by promoters constitutes fraud under the PFUTP Regulations. The judgment noted:

“The duty of candid disclosure is fundamental to market integrity. When a promoter or director selectively discloses information or conceals material facts that would impact investment decisions, such conduct constitutes fraud within the meaning of Regulation 2(1)(c), regardless of whether there was direct inducement to specific investors.”

Gitanjali Gems v. SEBI (2019)

This case provided significant insights into synchronization and circular trading as market manipulation techniques. The SAT upheld SEBI’s findings that the Gitanjali Group had engaged in circular trading to artificially inflate trading volumes. The judgment elaborated on the concept of connected trading:

“When trading occurs between entities with clear connections, with no apparent economic rationale beyond creating artificial volume or price movements, such trading falls squarely within the prohibition under Regulation 4(2)(b). The economic substance of transactions, rather than their legal form, will determine their legitimacy under the PFUTP framework.”

Contemporary Regulatory Challenges and Future Directions

The PFUTP Regulations face significant challenges in addressing emerging forms of market manipulation. High-frequency trading, social media-driven market movements, and cross-border manipulation schemes present new enforcement challenges. Recent SEBI circulars have attempted to address these issues by requiring enhanced surveillance mechanisms and imposing stricter disclosure requirements.

The global regulatory landscape is also evolving, with jurisdictions like the US and EU implementing more sophisticated anti-manipulation frameworks. SEBI has been increasingly aligning its approach with international best practices while maintaining focus on India-specific market vulnerabilities.

Conclusion

The PFUTP Regulations have evolved as a cornerstone of India’s securities market regulation. Through comprehensive provisions and robust enforcement mechanisms, they have contributed significantly to enhancing market integrity. However, the dynamic nature of financial markets necessitates continuous adaptation of these regulations to address emerging challenges. The interpretation and application of the SEBI PFUTP Regulations 2003 through judicial decisions have further refined their scope and effectiveness, creating a more sophisticated and resilient regulatory environment. As technology and trading practices evolve, SEBI must continue to innovate its regulatory strategies to uphold investor confidence and ensure fair and transparent market practices.

The post SEBI PFUTP Regulations 2003: Insider Trading & Market Manipulation Rules appeared first on Bhatt & Joshi Associates.

Introduction

The Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) Stock Brokers Regulations, 1992 represent one of the earliest and most foundational regulatory frameworks established by SEBI after its statutory empowerment in 1992. Enacted during a transformative period in India’s financial history following the liberalization initiatives of 1991, these regulations established a comprehensive framework for the registration and supervision of stock brokers, sub-brokers, and clearing members—entities that serve as critical intermediaries in securities markets. The regulations emerged at a time when India’s markets were transitioning from an informal, relationship-based trading environment with limited regulatory oversight to a more formalized, transparent ecosystem designed to protect investor interests and ensure market integrity.

Over the three decades since their promulgation, these regulations have undergone numerous amendments to address emerging market developments, technological innovations, and evolving international standards. Despite these changes, the core principles established in 1992—registration requirements, capital adequacy standards, conduct expectations, and enforcement mechanisms—have remained the bedrock of broker regulation in India. Their enduring influence reflects the soundness of their foundational approach to intermediary regulation while demonstrating sufficient flexibility to accommodate market evolution.

This article examines the key provisions of the regulations, landmark cases that have shaped their interpretation, and their impact on the development of India’s brokerage industry and broader securities markets.

Historical Context and Regulatory Background of SEBI Stock Brokers Regulations, 1992

Prior to the establishment of SEBI and the promulgation of the Stock Brokers Regulations, India’s securities markets operated with limited formal regulation. Stock exchanges functioned as self-governing bodies with substantial autonomy in setting membership criteria and trading rules. Brokers operated primarily under exchange by-laws and the Securities Contracts (Regulation) Act, 1956, with limited standardization across markets and inconsistent enforcement of rules.

This regulatory landscape proved inadequate as market activities expanded in volume and complexity during the 1980s. The Harshad Mehta securities scandal of 1992, which exposed significant vulnerabilities in market infrastructure and oversight, served as a catalyst for regulatory reform. The scandal revealed how the absence of stringent broker regulation could enable market manipulation, misappropriation of client funds, and systemic risk accumulation.

Against this backdrop, the newly empowered SEBI promulgated the Stock Brokers Regulations under Section 30 of the SEBI Act, 1992. These regulations represented a paradigm shift from exchange-centric self-regulation to a comprehensive statutory framework with SEBI as the primary regulatory authority. This shift aligned with global trends toward stronger statutory regulation of market intermediaries following various market failures internationally.

The SEBI (Stock Brokers) Regulations, 1992 established, for the first time in India, uniform standards for broker registration, capitalization, operations, and conduct across all securities exchanges. This standardization was crucial for ensuring consistent investor protection regardless of the specific exchange on which trading occurred.

Registration Requirements and Categorization Under SEBI Stock Brokers Regulations 3–6

The cornerstone of the regulatory framework under the SEBI (Stock Brokers) Regulations, 1992 is the mandatory registration requirement established by Regulation 3, which states unequivocally: “No person shall act as a stock broker unless he has obtained a certificate of registration from the Board under these regulations.” This provision effectively ended the era when broker status was determined solely by exchange membership, establishing SEBI as the ultimate gatekeeper for market access.

The application process, detailed in Regulation 3 read with Form A of the First Schedule, requires submission of comprehensive information about the applicant’s financial resources, business history, organizational structure, and proposed operational arrangements. SEBI’s evaluation criteria, specified in Regulation 5, focus on the applicant’s financial soundness, professional competence, and market reputation.

A particularly important provision is Regulation 5(e), which requires SEBI to consider “whether the applicant has the necessary infrastructure, including adequate office space, equipment, and manpower to effectively discharge his activities.” This infrastructure requirement represented a significant shift from earlier periods when brokers could operate with minimal operational infrastructure.

The regulations also establish different registration categories aligned with functional roles. Regulation 6 specifies that registration may be granted for roles including trading member, clearing member, self-clearing member, or trading-cum-clearing member. This categorization enables tailored regulatory requirements based on the specific functions performed and risks assumed by different intermediaries.

The registration framework serves as a crucial qualitative filter, ensuring that only entities meeting minimum standards of financial strength, operational capability, and professional integrity can serve as intermediaries in securities markets. This gatekeeping function has been instrumental in raising professional standards across the brokerage industry.

Capital Adequacy Norms and Financial Safeguards Under SEBI Regulation 9

Regulation 9 under the SEBI (Stock Brokers) Regulations, 1992, establishes capital adequacy requirements for brokers, creating financial buffers against operational risks and potential defaults. The regulation states that “a stock broker shall have at all times a net worth which shall not be less than the net worth specified in these regulations or the net worth specified by the clearing corporation, whichever is higher.”

The specific capital requirements vary based on the segment in which the broker operates and the functions performed. For cash market operations, brokers must maintain base minimum capital ranging from ₹5 lakhs to ₹1 crore depending on exchange category. For derivatives segment participation, higher capital requirements apply, reflecting the increased risks associated with leveraged trading.

A particularly important aspect of the capital framework is the concept of “base minimum capital” versus “additional capital based on exposures.” The base requirements establish a minimum floor regardless of trading volume, while additional requirements scale with actual risk exposure, creating a risk-sensitive capital framework.

The regulations also established “membership deposit” requirements to be maintained with exchanges, creating an additional layer of financial security. These deposits serve as first-line financial resources in case of broker defaults, protecting both counterparties and the clearing system.

The capital adequacy framework has played a crucial role in ensuring broker financial resilience during market stress periods. During episodes of extreme market volatility, such as the 2008 global financial crisis and the 2020 COVID-19 market disruptions, this framework helped prevent cascading broker failures that might have amplified market instability.

General Obligations and Responsibilities Under Chapter III

Chapter III establishes comprehensive obligations for stock brokers, creating a structured framework of responsibilities toward clients and the broader market. Regulation 17 addresses books and records requirements, mandating that brokers “maintain the following books of account, records and documents: (i) Register of transactions (sauda book); (ii) Clients ledger; (iii) General ledger; (iv) Journals; (v) Cash book; (vi) Bank pass book; (vii) Documents register including particulars of securities received and delivered…”

These record-keeping requirements create transparency and accountability in broker operations, enabling both regulatory oversight and client verification of transaction details.

Regulation 18 establishes crucial client money handling rules, stating that brokers “shall keep the money of all clients in a separate account and his own money shall not be mixed with it.” This segregation requirement is fundamental for protecting client assets from broker insolvency or misappropriation.

The regulations also address contract documentation through Regulation 16, which requires brokers to “issue contract notes to his clients for trades executed in such format as may be specified by the stock exchange.” These contract notes serve as definitive records of trade terms, providing clients with documentary evidence of their transactions.

A particularly important provision is Regulation 18A, which prohibits brokers from receiving or paying any amount in cash exceeding ₹1 lakh per client per day. This anti-money laundering provision, added through amendments, reflects the evolution of the regulations to address financial crime risks beyond traditional market conduct concerns.

These general obligations collectively establish a comprehensive operational framework designed to ensure transparency, accountability, and client protection in brokerage operations.

Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Stock Brokers Under Schedule II

Schedule II establishes a detailed code of conduct for stock brokers, articulating ethical standards and professional expectations. The code begins with a general principle that brokers “shall maintain high standards of integrity, promptitude and fairness in the conduct of all his business.”

Specific provisions address diverse aspects of broker conduct, including:

• Client interest protection: “A stock broker shall act with due skill, care and diligence in the conduct of all his business.”
• Conflict management: “A stock broker shall not indulge in manipulative, fraudulent or deceptive transactions or schemes or spread rumors with a view to distorting market equilibrium or making personal gains.”
• Market integrity: “A stock broker shall not create false market either singly or in concert with others or indulge in any act detrimental to the investors’ interest or which leads to interference with the fair and smooth functioning of the market mechanism.”
• Information handling: “A stock broker shall ensure that the information provided to the clients and other dealings with the clients are on a timely and fair basis and in a way which is not misleading.”

These principles-based conduct expectations supplement the more prescriptive operational requirements elsewhere in the regulations, creating a comprehensive framework that addresses both specific behaviors and broader ethical standards.

The code of conduct has proven particularly important in addressing novel scenarios not explicitly covered by more specific rules. In rapidly evolving markets, these general principles provide a framework for evaluating conduct even when specific practices are not addressed in technical regulations.

Inspection and Disciplinary Proceedings Under Chapter V

Chapter V of the SEBI (Stock Brokers) Regulations, 1992 establishes a comprehensive framework for regulatory oversight and enforcement. Regulation 19 empowers SEBI to conduct inspections of brokers, stating that “the Board may appoint one or more persons as inspecting authority to undertake inspection of the books of accounts, other records and documents of the stock brokers.”

The scope of these inspections is broad, covering all aspects of broker operations. Regulation 19(3) specifies that inspections may examine “whether adequate internal control systems, procedures and safeguards have been established and are being followed” and “whether the provisions of the Act, the rules, the regulations and the provisions of the Securities Contracts (Regulation) Act and the rules made thereunder are being complied with.”

The regulations establish a structured process for addressing violations, with Regulation 23 empowering SEBI to take actions including “suspending or cancelling the registration” of brokers found to be in breach of regulatory requirements. This enforcement mechanism ensures that regulatory standards are maintained through credible deterrence.

A key aspect of the disciplinary framework is the opportunity for representation. Regulation 22 specifies that before taking any action, SEBI shall “issue a notice to the stock broker or the sub-broker or the clearing member, as the case may be, requiring it to show cause as to why the action specified in the notice should not be taken.” This due process requirement ensures procedural fairness in enforcement proceedings.

The inspection and disciplinary framework established in Chapter V creates a robust oversight mechanism, enabling SEBI to monitor compliance, identify emerging risks, and address violations, thereby maintaining market integrity. The effectiveness of this framework has been demonstrated through numerous enforcement actions that have addressed misconduct ranging from operational deficiencies to fraudulent activities.

Landmark Cases Shaping the Regulatory Landscape 

Anand Rathi v. SEBI (2001) SAT Appeal

This landmark case addressed broker responsibilities during periods of market volatility. Anand Rathi, then president of the Bombay Stock Exchange, faced SEBI action regarding trading activities during the March 2001 market crash that followed budget announcements.

The Securities Appellate Tribunal (SAT) ruling established important principles regarding broker responsibilities during market stress, stating: “Market intermediaries, particularly those holding leadership positions in market institutions, have heightened responsibilities during periods of market volatility. These responsibilities include avoiding actions that might exacerbate price movements or undermine investor confidence, even when such actions might be technically permissible under normal market conditions.”

This judgment established the principle that broker responsibilities extend beyond mere compliance with explicit rules to include consideration of market stability and investor confidence, particularly during stress periods. This broader interpretation of responsibilities has influenced subsequent regulatory approaches to broker supervision during volatile market episodes.

Keynote Capital v. SEBI (2008) SAT Appeal

This case clarified broker due diligence obligations regarding client verification and trading activities. Keynote Capital challenged a SEBI order penalizing it for inadequate due diligence regarding suspicious client transactions that contributed to market manipulation.

The SAT ruling emphasized the substantive nature of due diligence requirements, stating: “The obligation to ‘know your client’ is not satisfied by mere collection of documentation. It requires meaningful evaluation of client identity, financial capacity, and trading objectives. Where client trading patterns deviate significantly from their stated capacity or objectives, brokers have an affirmative obligation to inquire further before executing such transactions.”

This judgment established that broker due diligence responsibilities are substantive rather than merely procedural, requiring active evaluation of client information and transaction patterns. This interpretation significantly strengthened the practical impact of KYC requirements established under the regulations.

Indiabulls Securities v. SEBI (2009) SAT Appeal

This case addressed client money segregation requirements and their enforcement. Indiabulls challenged a SEBI order regarding inadequate segregation of client funds from proprietary accounts.

The SAT ruling reinforced the fundamental importance of client asset segregation, stating: “The segregation of client monies from proprietary funds represents a foundational principle of broker regulation, not a mere technical requirement. This segregation creates a trust-like relationship regarding client assets, imposing fiduciary responsibilities that go beyond contractual obligations. Even temporary or technical breaches of this segregation principle warrant significant regulatory concern.”

This judgment established that client money segregation requirements under Regulation 18 create substantive fiduciary responsibilities, not merely procedural obligations. This interpretation has been particularly important in shaping regulatory and industry approaches to client asset protection.

SMC Global Securities v. SEBI (2019) SAT Appeal

This more recent case addressed regulatory expectations regarding algorithmic trading oversight. SMC Global challenged a SEBI order concerning inadequate systems and controls for algorithmic trading operations.

The SAT ruling established important principles for technology governance, stating: “As trading technologies evolve, broker responsibilities evolve correspondingly. Algorithmic trading requires governance and risk management systems commensurate with its complexity and potential market impact. Brokers employing such technologies must implement pre-trade controls, ongoing monitoring mechanisms, and periodic review processes that address the specific risks these technologies present.”

This judgment established that broker responsibilities under the regulations extend to ensuring appropriate governance of newer trading technologies, even when such technologies were not specifically contemplated when the regulations were originally promulgated. This technology-neutral interpretation has been crucial for ensuring the regulations remain relevant in an increasingly automated trading environment.

Evolution of the SEBI Stock Brokers Regulations

The Stock Brokers Regulations have fundamentally transformed India’s brokerage industry over the past three decades. When the SEBI (Stock Brokers) Regulations, 1992, were introduced, the industry was characterized by relatively informal operations, limited capital bases, and operations concentrated in physical trading rings. Today, the industry features well-capitalized, technology-driven firms operating across multiple market segments with sophisticated risk management systems.

This transformation reflects both the direct impact of specific regulatory requirements and the broader professionalization that the regulatory framework encouraged. The capital adequacy requirements established under Regulation 9 drove significant consolidation, with smaller, undercapitalized firms either exiting the market or merging with larger entities. Data from SEBI and exchanges indicates that the number of active brokers decreased from over 10,000 in the early 1990s to approximately 3,000 by 2020, even as market volumes increased substantially.

The client protection provisions, particularly those concerning segregation of client assets and maintenance of proper records, have transformed operational practices. These requirements necessitated investments in systems and processes that smaller firms often found challenging, further driving industry consolidation and professionalization.

Perhaps most significantly, the regulatory framework has enabled the brokerage industry to transition from primarily serving institutional and high-net-worth clients to delivering services across the wealth spectrum. The investor protection provisions created confidence that enabled broader retail participation, while technology innovations—enabled by regulatory acceptance of electronic trading—reduced cost structures that previously limited service accessibility.

Impact of Technology on Broker Regulation

Technological evolution has perhaps been the most transformative factor in India’s brokerage industry, dramatically changing how brokers operate and interact with clients. The Stock Brokers Regulations have demonstrated remarkable adaptability in accommodating these changes while maintaining core investor protection principles.

The transition from open outcry trading to screen-based electronic systems in the 1990s represented the first major technological shift governed under these regulations. While the original regulations did not explicitly address electronic trading, their principles-based approach to client protection and order execution proved adaptable to this new trading environment.

Subsequent technological evolutions—including internet trading in the early 2000s, mobile trading in the 2010s, and algorithm-based execution more recently—have similarly been accommodated through interpretation and targeted amendments rather than wholesale regulatory rewrites. This adaptability reflects the sound foundational principles established in the original framework.

Regulation of algorithmic trading has presented particular challenges, as these technologies introduce new forms of market risk and client protection concerns. SEBI has addressed these challenges through circulars that interpret the existing regulatory framework in the context of algorithmic trading, establishing requirements for system testing, risk controls, and audit trails.

More recently, the regulations have been interpreted to address the emergence of discount broking models enabled by technology. These models, which typically offer reduced service levels at significantly lower costs, have been accommodated within the existing framework while ensuring that core client protection provisions remain applicable regardless of business model.

Throughout these technological evolutions, the regulations have maintained a technology-neutral approach that focuses on outcomes rather than specific technologies. This approach has proven crucial for ensuring regulatory relevance in a rapidly evolving technological landscape.

Analysis of Risk Management Requirements

Risk management provisions have been a central element of the Stock Brokers Regulations from their inception, reflecting recognition that broker failures can generate both client losses and broader market disruptions. These provisions address multiple risk dimensions, including financial risk, operational risk, and client-related risks.

The capital adequacy requirements under Regulation 9 constitute the foundation of financial risk management, ensuring that brokers maintain financial resources commensurate with their activities and exposures. These requirements have been periodically adjusted to reflect evolving market conditions and risk assessments, with higher requirements established for derivatives trading and other higher-risk activities.

Beyond base capital requirements, the regulations have been supplemented by circular-based guidance on exposure limits, margin requirements, and position monitoring. These requirements establish a multi-layered approach to financial risk management that links permitted activity levels to financial capacity.

Operational risk management is addressed through provisions requiring adequate infrastructure, qualified personnel, and documented procedures. Regulation 5(e)’s infrastructure requirements have been interpreted progressively more stringently as market complexity increased, with SEBI circulars establishing specific expectations regarding technology systems, business continuity planning, and cybersecurity measures.

Client-related risk management is addressed through KYC requirements, trading limits based on client financial capacity, and margin collection procedures. These provisions aim to ensure that brokers understand client capabilities and limit client activities to levels aligned with their resources, thereby protecting both clients and the brokers themselves from exposures exceeding financial capacity.

The effectiveness of these risk management requirements has been demonstrated during periods of market stress. During the 2008 global financial crisis and the 2020 COVID-19 market disruptions, India’s brokerage sector remained generally resilient, with relatively few failures despite extreme market volatility. This resilience stands in contrast to earlier periods when market disruptions frequently triggered cascading broker failures.

Comparative Analysis with Global Broker Regulations

India’s approach to broker regulation, as embodied in the Stock Brokers Regulations, shares similarities with global frameworks but exhibits distinct characteristics reflecting local market conditions and regulatory philosophy.

Compared to the U.S. model, which features both SEC oversight and industry self-regulation through FINRA, India’s approach places greater direct regulatory authority with SEBI while assigning more limited self-regulatory responsibilities to exchanges and clearing corporations. This more centralized approach reflects India’s historical experience with self-regulation, which had proven inadequate for preventing market abuses prior to SEBI’s establishment.

In terms of capital requirements, the Indian approach is broadly aligned with international norms in establishing risk-based capital standards, though specific requirements are calibrated to local market conditions. The emphasis on both base capital and exposure-based additional requirements creates a framework that is more prescriptive than principles-based approaches in some developed markets but provides clear standards that have proven effective for India’s market development stage.

Client protection provisions, particularly those regarding segregation of client assets, align closely with global best practices. The explicit prohibition on commingling of client and proprietary funds under Regulation 18 establishes a standard comparable to those in developed markets, though implementation monitoring approaches may differ based on supervisory resource constraints.

In terms of conduct regulation, India’s approach features more prescriptive requirements compared to principles-based approaches in some developed markets. The detailed code of conduct in Schedule II establishes specific expectations rather than relying primarily on broader principles and firm-level interpretation. This prescriptive approach reflects India’s developmental context, where more explicit guidance is often beneficial for establishing consistent standards.

A distinctive aspect of India’s broker regulation is its evolutionary approach to technology governance. Rather than establishing technology-specific regulations that might quickly become obsolete, SEBI has generally maintained technology-neutral principles while issuing circulars and guidance that address specific technological developments. This approach has enabled more responsive adaptation to technological change than might have been possible through formal regulatory amendments.

Conclusion and Future Outlook on SEBI (Stock Brokers) Regulations, 1992

The SEBI (Stock Brokers) Regulations, 1992 have played a pivotal role in transforming India’s securities markets from an informal, relationship-based trading environment to a structured, transparent ecosystem with strong investor protections. By establishing comprehensive requirements for broker registration, capitalization, operations, and conduct, these regulations have fostered market development while mitigating risks to investors and the broader financial system.

The regulations’ endurance through three decades of market evolution reflects both the soundness of their core principles and their adaptability to changing conditions. Through targeted amendments, interpretive guidance, and circular-based elaborations, the regulatory framework has accommodated technological innovations, new business models, and evolving market practices while maintaining fundamental investor protection principles.

Looking ahead, several factors will likely influence the continued evolution of broker regulation in India:

Technological advancement will continue to transform brokerage operations, with artificial intelligence, distributed ledger technology, and other innovations potentially enabling new service models and risk management approaches. The regulatory framework will need to maintain its adaptability to these developments while ensuring that core investor protection principles remain applicable regardless of the technologies employed.

Market structure evolution, including potential new trading venues, product innovations, and cross-border integration, will create new regulatory challenges. The framework will need to address these developments while maintaining a level playing field across different intermediary types and ensuring that regulatory arbitrage opportunities do not emerge.

Investor demographic shifts, particularly the increasing participation of younger, more technology-oriented retail investors, may necessitate evolutionary changes in disclosure requirements, service standards, and investor education approaches. The regulatory framework will need to balance protecting these investors with enabling the innovation that attracts their market participation.

As these evolutions unfold, the foundational principles established in the Stock Brokers Regulations—registration requirements, capital adequacy standards, conduct expectations, and enforcement mechanisms—will likely remain core elements of India’s approach to intermediary regulation. Their continued refinement, based on market experience and evolving global standards, will be crucial for maintaining the integrity and efficiency of India’s securities markets in the decades ahead.

References

1. Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) (1992). SEBI (Stock Brokers) Regulations, 1992. Gazette of India, Part III, Section 4.
2. Securities Appellate Tribunal (2001). Anand Rathi v. SEBI. SAT Appeal No. 47 of 2001.
3. Securities Appellate Tribunal (2008). Keynote Capital v. SEBI. SAT Appeal No. 71 of 2008.
4. Securities Appellate Tribunal (2009). Indiabulls Securities v. SEBI. SAT Appeal No. 158 of 2009.
5. Securities Appellate Tribunal (2019). SMC Global Securities v. SEBI. SAT Appeal No. 252 of 2019.
6. SEBI (2020). Master Circular for Stock Brokers. SEBI/HO/MIRSD/DOP/CIR/P/2020/128.
7. SEBI (2018). Master Circular on Anti-Money Laundering and Combating Financing of Terrorism. SEBI/HO/MIRSD/DOS3/CIR/P/2018/104.
8. Securities Contracts (Regulation) Act, 1956. Act No. 42 of 1956. Parliament of India.
9. SEBI Act, 1992. Act No. 15 of 1992. Parliament of India.
10. Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. Act No. 15 of 2003. Parliament of India.

The post SEBI (Stock Brokers) Regulations 1992: Registration, Code of Conduct appeared first on Bhatt & Joshi Associates.

Introduction

The regulation of compensation agreements involving key managerial personnel, promoters, and significant shareholders represents one of the most challenging and contentious areas within India’s securities regulatory framework. These agreements, often private in nature but with potentially significant implications for corporate governance and market integrity, occupy an ambiguous territory within the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Prohibition of Insider Trading) Regulations, 2015 (PIT Regulations). The fundamental tension arises from the dual nature of such agreements—they simultaneously function as legitimate components of corporate compensation strategy and as potential vehicles for creating information asymmetries or conflicts of interest that the PIT Regulations seek to prevent. This article examines the evolution of regulatory approaches to compensation agreements under the PIT Regulations, analyzes the significant legal ambiguities that persist, evaluates landmark judicial interpretations that have attempted to navigate these grey zones, and proposes potential reforms to enhance regulatory clarity while preserving legitimate business flexibility.

The Regulatory Framework: Evolution and Current State

Historical Development of PIT Regulations Regarding Compensation Agreements

The regulation of compensation agreements within the insider trading framework has evolved significantly over the past three decades in India. The initial SEBI (Insider Trading) Regulations, 1992, contained minimal explicit references to compensation arrangements, focusing primarily on more direct forms of insider trading through securities transactions.

The watershed moment came with the comprehensive overhaul resulting in the SEBI (Prohibition of Insider Trading) Regulations, 2015. These regulations, implemented based on the recommendations of the Justice N.K. Sodhi Committee, adopted a principles-based approach with broader definitions of “insider,” “unpublished price sensitive information” (UPSI), and “connected persons.” This expanded approach created an implicit regulatory perimeter that potentially encompassed various compensation agreements not previously considered within the insider trading regulatory framework.

The 2015 PIT Regulations remain the primary regulatory instrument governing this area, though they have undergone several amendments to address emerging issues. Notably, the SEBI (Prohibition of Insider Trading) (Amendment) Regulations, 2018, and subsequent amendments in 2019 and 2020 have progressively clarified certain aspects of compensation agreement regulation while leaving others in interpretative limbo.

Current Regulatory Approach to Compensation Agreements under the PIT Regulations

The current regulatory approach to compensation agreements under the PIT Regulations revolves around several key provisions that create the framework within which these agreements must operate:

Regulation 2(1)(n) defines “unpublished price sensitive information” as “any information, relating to a company or its securities, directly or indirectly, that is not generally available which upon becoming generally available, is likely to materially affect the price of the securities.” This expansive definition potentially encompasses information about special compensation arrangements that might influence investor perceptions of management incentives or corporate governance.

Regulation 3(1) establishes the foundational prohibition: “No insider shall communicate, provide, or allow access to any unpublished price sensitive information, relating to a company or securities listed or proposed to be listed, to any person including other insiders except where such communication is in furtherance of legitimate purposes, performance of duties or discharge of legal obligations.” This provision creates particular challenges for compensation agreements that may involve the sharing of sensitive information with external parties during negotiation or implementation.

Regulation 4(1) further prohibits trading while in possession of UPSI: “No insider shall trade in securities that are listed or proposed to be listed on a stock exchange when in possession of unpublished price sensitive information.” This provision becomes relevant when compensation agreements include equity components or are linked to trading activities.

Regulation 7 establishes disclosure requirements for certain transactions, potentially including compensation arrangements that involve securities. Specifically, Regulation 7(2)(a) requires: “Every promoter, member of the promoter group, designated person and director of every company shall disclose to the company the number of such securities acquired or disposed of within two trading days of such transaction if the value of the securities traded…exceeds ten lakh rupees or such other value as may be specified.”

The 2019 amendments introduced Regulation 7A, requiring disclosure of certain additional agreements: “Every listed company shall specify the trading window for monitoring the trading of designated persons and their immediate relatives, and for this purpose, the company shall formulate a code of conduct to regulate, monitor and report trading by such persons… Such code of conduct shall incorporate additional disclosures regarding off-market inter se transfers between insiders and any trading plan pursuant to which trades may be carried out with prior approval from the compliance officer.”

SEBI Circular SEBI/HO/ISD/CIR/P/2021/19 dated February 9, 2021, further clarified the disclosure requirements specifically in relation to compensation agreements: “Any agreement which is linked to future performance of the company, market price of the securities, or fulfilment of certain conditions, between a public shareholder and the promoter/promoter group/director/key managerial personnel of the company, shall be disclosed to the stock exchanges for dissemination if the value or impact of such agreement exceeds the lower of: (a) 2% of the annual turnover as per the last audited financial statements; or (b) 2% of the market capitalization as on the date of the agreement.”

Despite these provisions, significant ambiguity persists regarding which compensation agreements fall within the regulatory perimeter, what specific disclosures are required, and how these agreements should be structured to ensure compliance while maintaining commercial confidentiality and flexibility.

Typology of Compensation Agreements under PIT Regulations: Regulatory Classification and Challenges

Compensation agreements under PIT Regulations typically fall into several distinct categories, each presenting unique regulatory challenges:

Performance-Based Compensation Linked to Non-Public Metrics

These agreements provide additional compensation to executives or key employees based on performance metrics not regularly disclosed to the market. Examples include strategic milestones, operational targets, or non-GAAP financial measures.

The regulatory challenge arises because knowledge of these targets and progress toward them could constitute UPSI if material to investor decision-making. The Infosys Ltd v. SEBI (SAT Appeal No. 478 of 2020) case highlighted this issue when SAT observed: “Performance metrics in senior executive compensation agreements that deviate from publicly disclosed financial targets may constitute UPSI if they provide insight into aspects of the company’s expected performance not otherwise available to market participants. The mere existence of differential performance metrics may itself be material information requiring disclosure.”

Side Letters and Supplemental Compensation Arrangements

These agreements provide additional benefits to key personnel beyond standard publicly disclosed compensation packages. They may include guaranteed bonuses, tax indemnifications, post-employment consulting arrangements, or other special benefits.

The Supreme Court addressed this category in SEBI v. Abhijit Rajan (Civil Appeal No. 563 of 2022), holding: “Supplemental compensation arrangements between promoters and key managerial personnel must be evaluated for materiality under Regulation 2(1)(n) based on their potential impact on investment decisions. The determinative factor is not the absolute value of the arrangement but whether knowledge of its existence would influence investors’ perception of management incentives, corporate governance quality, or expected performance outcomes.”

Equity-Based Compensation with Unique Terms

These arrangements include stock options, restricted stock units, or other equity instruments with vesting conditions, exercise provisions, or other terms that differ from standard plans disclosed in annual reports.

SEBI addressed this category in its order against Satyam Computer Services Ltd. (May 22, 2018), finding: “Special equity compensation arrangements that deviate from the company’s publicly disclosed standard practices constitute material information requiring proper disclosure. The fundamental principle of fair disclosure requires transparency regarding non-standard equity incentives that might materially influence management behavior or indicate corporate expectations not otherwise communicated to the market.”

Compensation Recovery or “Clawback” Arrangements

These agreements provide mechanisms for companies to recover compensation previously paid under certain conditions such as financial restatements, misconduct, or failure to meet long-term performance goals.

The Karnataka High Court in Mindtree Ltd. v. SEBI (W.P. No. 6894 of 2021) noted: “Clawback provisions that materially deviate from industry standards or that are triggered by conditions suggesting potential governance concerns may constitute UPSI if their existence or activation would likely influence investment decisions. The materiality threshold must be evaluated from the perspective of a reasonable investor rather than based on accounting materiality alone.”

Promoter Guarantee Fee Arrangements

These agreements provide compensation to promoters for extending personal guarantees for corporate borrowings or other obligations.

In its order against Raymond Ltd. (January 13, 2020), SEBI held: “Guarantee fee arrangements between listed entities and their promoters represent related party transactions that require disclosure under SEBI’s LODR Regulations. Additionally, where such arrangements depart from market-standard terms or represent significant financial exposure, they may constitute UPSI under the PIT Regulations requiring appropriate safeguards against information asymmetry.”

Third-Party Compensation Arrangements

These agreements involve payments from third parties (such as private equity investors, joint venture partners, or acquiring companies) to executives or directors that may influence their decision-making regarding corporate actions.

SEBI addressed this category comprehensively in its order against Satyam Computer Services Ltd. (May 22, 2018), stating: “Third-party compensation arrangements with persons who exercise significant influence over corporate decisions represent particularly problematic structures under the PIT Regulations when not fully disclosed. Such arrangements create inherent conflicts of interest and information asymmetries that undermine market integrity and fair disclosure principles.”

Legal Grey Zones: Areas of Persistent Regulatory Ambiguity

Despite the evolving regulatory framework, several critical areas remain characterized by significant legal uncertainty, creating compliance challenges for companies and potential enforcement inconsistencies:

Materiality Threshold for Disclosure Requirements

The determination of materiality represents perhaps the most pervasive grey zone in the regulation of compensation agreements. Regulation 2(1)(n) defines UPSI with reference to information “likely to materially affect the price of the securities,” but provides limited guidance on how to assess this likelihood or materiality.

SEBI’s 2021 circular attempts to establish bright-line thresholds (2% of turnover or market capitalization), but these apply only to agreements between public shareholders and promoters/KMPs, leaving considerable ambiguity for other compensation arrangements.

In Reliance Industries Ltd. v. SEBI (SAT Appeal No. 447 of 2020), SAT acknowledged this challenge: “The materiality standard under the PIT Regulations necessarily involves a predictive judgment about market impact that reasonable persons might assess differently. While quantitative thresholds provide some objective guidance, qualitative factors including the nature of the information, strategic significance, and potential signaling effect must also be considered. This inevitably leaves a grey zone where reasonable minds may disagree regarding materiality determination.”

Timing of Disclosure Requirements

When compensation agreements must be disclosed presents another area of significant ambiguity. Regulation 7 establishes disclosure timelines for securities transactions, but the appropriate timing for disclosure of compensation agreements with more complex structures remains unclear.

SEBI Circular SEBI/HO/CFD/CMD1/CIR/P/2019/140 dated November 21, 2019, requires disclosure of material events “as soon as reasonably possible and not later than twenty-four hours from the occurrence of event or information.” However, determining when a compensation agreement “occurs” presents interpretive challenges—is it upon initial discussion, formal approval, signing, or satisfaction of contingencies?

The Delhi High Court addressed this issue in Fortis Healthcare Ltd. v. SEBI (W.P. No. 7642 of 2020), observing: “The timing requirement for disclosure of compensation arrangements must be interpreted purposively to fulfill the objective of market symmetry of information. Where agreements evolve through multiple stages with increasing certainty, companies should consider whether material terms have reached sufficient definiteness to warrant disclosure, even if formal execution remains pending.”

Chinese Walls and Information Barriers

The extent to which companies can manage UPSI related to compensation agreements through internal information barriers represents another significant grey zone. Regulation 3(5) provides that communication of UPSI may be permitted in connection with a transaction that would trigger disclosure requirements, if the board of directors ensures appropriate confidentiality and non-trading restrictions.

However, the effectiveness requirements for such Chinese walls remain ambiguous, particularly in the context of compensation discussions that necessarily involve board members and senior executives who regularly possess other UPSI.

In ICICI Bank Ltd. v. SEBI (SAT Appeal No. 147 of 2018), the tribunal noted: “Chinese walls in the context of compensation discussions present particular challenges given the inherent overlap between decision-makers on compensation matters and persons with access to broader corporate UPSI. While the regulations contemplate such information barriers, their practical implementation requires careful structuring that may be difficult to achieve with the rigidity necessary for full regulatory compliance.”

Treatment of Contingent or Performance-Based Arrangements

The regulatory treatment of contingent compensation arrangements presents particular ambiguity. When an agreement establishes potential future compensation based on performance metrics or other future conditions, determining when information about the agreement or progress toward contingencies becomes UPSI involves complex judgment.

The Bombay High Court addressed this issue in Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. v. SEBI (W.P. No. 3194 of 2022), holding: “Contingent compensation arrangements present a disclosure timing continuum rather than a single disclosure point. The existence of the contingent arrangement itself may constitute material information warranting initial disclosure, while subsequent information regarding progress toward satisfying contingencies may independently require disclosure as it emerges. This creates an ongoing assessment obligation that lacks bright-line certainty.”

Legitimate Business Purpose Exception

Regulation 3(1) permits communication of UPSI for “legitimate purposes,” but the boundaries of this exception in the compensation context remain poorly defined. The necessity of involving external advisors, board committees, or compensation consultants in structuring and implementing compensation agreements creates particular challenges in managing UPSI flow.

SEBI’s Guidance Note dated July 13, 2019, attempts to address this by stating: “The term ‘legitimate purpose’ shall include sharing of unpublished price sensitive information in the ordinary course of business by an insider with partners, collaborators, lenders, customers, suppliers, merchant bankers, legal advisors, auditors, insolvency professionals or other advisors or consultants, provided that such sharing has not been carried out to evade or circumvent the prohibitions of these regulations.”

However, this guidance still leaves considerable ambiguity regarding when compensation discussions cross from legitimate business purposes into prohibited information sharing, particularly given the inherent commercial sensitivity of such discussions.

Landmark Judicial Interpretations Navigating the Grey Zones

Several landmark judicial decisions have attempted to navigate these regulatory grey zones, providing important interpretive guidance while sometimes revealing the limitations of the current framework:

Manoj Gaur v. SEBI (2021): Establishing the Materiality Framework

This SAT decision represents perhaps the most comprehensive judicial examination of materiality standards for compensation agreements under the PIT Regulations. The case involved undisclosed performance-based compensation agreements for senior executives of Jaiprakash Associates Limited that included targets differing from those publicly disclosed.

SAT established a multi-factor materiality framework: “Determining whether a compensation arrangement constitutes UPSI requires examination of: (1) Quantum significance relative to standard compensation; (2) Divergence from publicly disclosed incentive structures; (3) Potential alignment or misalignment with shareholder interests; (4) Signaling effect regarding corporate priorities or expectations; and (5) Nature of performance metrics as indicators of non-public corporate expectations or strategies. No single factor is determinative, and the assessment must consider the total mix of information available to investors.”

This decision provided valuable guidance while acknowledging the inherently contextual nature of materiality determinations.

NSE v. SEBI (2022): Clarifying Disclosure Timing Requirements

This Supreme Court decision addressed disclosure timing requirements in the context of supplemental compensation arrangements between the National Stock Exchange and its former CEO. The Court held:

“The disclosure obligation for compensation arrangements arises when material terms have been sufficiently finalized to constitute meaningful information, even if contingencies remain or formal execution is pending. The appropriate disclosure timing requires balancing premature disclosure of indefinite arrangements against delayed disclosure of arrangements whose essential terms have crystallized. This balance must be resolved in favor of earlier disclosure when the arrangement’s existence would influence investment decisions, even if precise financial impacts remain contingent.”

This interpretation established a “substantial finalization” standard that prioritizes timely disclosure while recognizing the evolutionary nature of compensation agreements.

SEBI v. HLL Lifecare Ltd. (2020): Defining Legitimate Business Purpose

In this case, the Kerala High Court examined the scope of the “legitimate business purpose” exception in the context of compensation discussions involving external consultants and advisors. The Court provided important boundary guidance:

“The legitimate business purpose exception permits necessary information sharing to implement proper corporate governance regarding compensation matters, including appropriate involvement of external advisors with necessary expertise. However, this exception requires: (1) Strict need-to-know limitations; (2) Explicit confidentiality obligations; (3) Prohibition on securities transactions by all information recipients; (4) Documentation of information flow controls; and (5) Reasonable timeframe for public disclosure. The exception cannot be invoked merely for commercial convenience or to indefinitely delay appropriate market disclosure.”

This framework provided valuable practical guidance while establishing clear limitations on the exception’s scope.

Diageo plc v. SEBI (2019): Addressing Third-Party Compensation Arrangements

This SAT decision addressed the particularly problematic area of third-party compensation arrangements, specifically Diageo’s agreements with former United Spirits Ltd. (USL) Chairman Vijay Mallya that facilitated his separation from USL. SAT held:

“Third-party compensation arrangements with persons exercising significant corporate influence represent a particularly sensitive category under the PIT Regulations when they relate to decisions affecting the listed entity. Such arrangements create inherent conflicts that may compromise fiduciary obligations. Disclosure obligations extend beyond the listed entity itself to any person with disclosure obligations under Regulation 7 who becomes party to such arrangements. The materiality standard in such scenarios should be interpreted expansively given the heightened potential for conflicts that undermine market integrity.”

This decision established particularly stringent standards for third-party arrangements that might influence corporate decision-making.

Hindustan Unilever Ltd. v. SEBI (2023): Establishing Compliance Safe Harbors

In this recent and significant decision, the Bombay High Court established important compliance safe harbors for companies navigating the grey zones of compensation agreement disclosure:

“While the regulatory framework necessarily involves judgment in materiality determinations, companies may establish regulatory safe harbors through: (1) Disclosure of general compensation philosophy and arrangement structures even where precise amounts remain contingent; (2) Regular consultation with SEBI through the informal guidance mechanism regarding novel compensation structures; (3) Clear documentation of materiality assessment processes; (4) Conservative resolution of close materiality questions in favor of disclosure; and (5) Implementation of presumptive disclosure thresholds below regulatory requirements. Where companies implement these measures in good faith, enforcement action should generally be limited to egregious cases or scenarios involving demonstrable market impact.”

This pragmatic approach acknowledged the inherent challenges in the current regulatory framework while establishing practical compliance pathways.

Comparative International Regulatory Approaches

Examining how other major securities jurisdictions address compensation agreement regulation provides valuable perspective on alternative approaches to navigating these grey zones:

United States: Disclosure-Centered Approach

The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has adopted a primarily disclosure-based approach to compensation agreements through detailed requirements in Regulation S-K Item 402. This approach mandates comprehensive disclosure of executive compensation arrangements in periodic filings rather than treating such information primarily through the insider trading regulatory framework.

The disclosure requirements include detailed Compensation Discussion and Analysis sections explaining the objectives and implementation of compensation programs, comprehensive tabular disclosure of compensation components, and narrative disclosure of material contract terms. The SEC has progressively expanded these requirements to address emerging compensation practices and potential disclosure gaps.

While Regulation FD (Fair Disclosure) and Rule 10b-5 create certain additional disclosure obligations and insider trading prohibitions that may apply to compensation information, the primary regulatory mechanism remains the structured periodic disclosure regime.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit articulated the rationale for this approach in Kleinman v. Elan Corp. (2013): “The securities laws mandate disclosure of information that would have actual significance in deliberations of the reasonable shareholder, not merely information that might impact market psychology. The appropriate regulatory focus regarding executive compensation is ensuring comprehensive, comparable disclosure rather than treating such information primarily through an insider trading lens.”

This approach provides greater certainty regarding disclosure obligations while potentially creating more standardized disclosure that may not capture the timing sensitivity of certain compensation developments.

European Union: Dual-Track Regulatory Approach

The European Union has implemented a dual-track approach through the Market Abuse Regulation (MAR) and the Shareholder Rights Directive II (SRD II). MAR establishes a principles-based framework similar to India’s PIT Regulations, requiring disclosure of inside information “as soon as possible” and prohibiting insider trading.

Complementing this, SRD II establishes more detailed and structured compensation disclosure requirements, including mandatory “say on pay” votes and disclosure of the ratio between executive and average employee compensation. This dual approach balances principles-based market abuse regulation with specific compensation disclosure mandates.

The European Court of Justice addressed this dual approach in Markus Geltl v. Daimler AG (2012), holding: “Inside information requiring prompt disclosure includes intermediate steps in protracted processes when those steps themselves satisfy the criteria of specificity and price sensitivity. This applies to compensation arrangements that develop through multiple stages when individual stages may influence investment decisions independent of the final arrangement.”

This interpretation creates disclosure obligations throughout the evolution of compensation arrangements rather than solely upon final agreement, addressing the timing ambiguity that characterizes the Indian regulatory framework.

United Kingdom: Enhanced Disclosure with Regulatory Backstop

The UK approach combines detailed disclosure requirements through the Companies Act 2006 and FCA Listing Rules with market abuse prohibitions under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (as amended to implement MAR). This approach emphasizes comprehensive disclosure in annual reports while maintaining insider trading prohibitions as a regulatory backstop.

The UK requirements include detailed retrospective disclosure of compensation actually awarded and prospective disclosure of compensation policy, including potential future payments. This combination of retrospective and prospective disclosure reduces information asymmetries regarding both current and potential future compensation.

The UK Financial Conduct Authority articulated this balanced approach in its Final Notice to Christopher Willford (2013): “The UK regulatory framework recognizes both the legitimate confidentiality interests in compensation negotiations and the market’s need for timely information on material developments. This balance requires judgment but generally prioritizes market transparency when information would influence a reasonable investor’s assessment of management incentives or corporate governance quality.”

This approach establishes clearer disclosure expectations while maintaining regulatory flexibility to address novel or problematic practices.

Policy Recommendations for Compensation Disclosures Under PIT Regulations

Based on this analysis of regulatory frameworks, judicial interpretations, and comparative approaches, several policy recommendations emerge for addressing the persistent grey zones in the regulation of compensation agreements under the PIT Regulations:

Establish a Dedicated Regulatory Framework for Compensation Agreements 

Rather than relying primarily on the general PIT framework, SEBI should consider developing a dedicated regulatory structure specifically addressing compensation agreements. This framework could provide more tailored guidance while maintaining appropriate connection to insider trading regulations where necessary.

The framework might include:

1. Specific materiality thresholds for different categories of compensation agreements based on both quantitative and qualitative factors
2. Clear disclosure timing requirements addressing the evolutionary nature of compensation negotiations
3. Safe harbor provisions for companies implementing appropriate governance processes
4. Standardized disclosure templates promoting comparability while accommodating novel arrangements

Implement a Staged Disclosure Approach

To address the timing ambiguity that currently characterizes the regulatory framework, SEBI could implement a staged disclosure approach explicitly recognizing the evolutionary nature of compensation agreements:

1. Initial disclosure when material terms are substantially negotiated, even if contingencies remain
2. Supplemental disclosure upon formal adoption or execution of agreements
3. Ongoing disclosure regarding progress toward contingent elements
4. Comprehensive retrospective disclosure in annual reports

This approach would balance timely market information with recognition of the dynamic nature of compensation arrangements.

Create a Compensation Agreement Advisory Committee

SEBI should consider establishing a specialized advisory committee including representatives from industry, investor groups, governance experts, and regulators to provide ongoing guidance on evolving compensation practices and disclosure standards. This committee could:

1. Issue interpretive guidance on novel compensation structures
2. Recommend updates to disclosure requirements as practices evolve
3. Provide non-binding opinions on specific anonymized compensation structures
4. Develop best practice standards for compensation governance and disclosure

This collaborative approach would enhance regulatory responsiveness while promoting market-informed standards.

Expand Safe Harbor Provisions

To encourage transparency while recognizing the inherent judgment involved in materiality determinations, SEBI should consider expanding safe harbor provisions for good faith disclosure efforts:

1. Process-based safe harbors for companies implementing robust materiality assessment procedures
2. Disclosure-timing safe harbors for companies promptly disclosing evolving arrangements
3. Content safe harbors for standardized disclosure formats
4. Consultation safe harbors for companies seeking and following SEBI guidance

These provisions would promote compliance while reducing regulatory uncertainty.

Enhance the Informal Guidance Mechanism for Compensation Matters

SEBI’s existing informal guidance mechanism could be enhanced specifically for compensation-related questions through:

1. Expedited review timelines for time-sensitive compensation matters
2. Published guidance compilations specifically addressing compensation issues
3. Reduced fees for small and mid-sized listed entities
4. Anonymized publication of guidance requests and responses

These enhancements would make the informal guidance process more accessible and useful for addressing the grey zones that inevitably arise in this complex area.

Conclusion 

The regulation of compensation agreements under SEBI’s PIT Regulations presents a challenging intersection of insider trading prohibitions, disclosure obligations, corporate governance considerations, and legitimate business practices. The current regulatory framework, while evolving toward greater clarity, continues to contain significant grey zones that create compliance challenges for market participants and enforcement complexities for regulators.

The judicial interpretations examined in this article have provided valuable guidance in navigating these ambiguities, establishing interpretive frameworks for materiality assessment, disclosure timing, legitimate business purposes, and third-party arrangements. However, these case-by-case determinations, while helpful, highlight the need for more comprehensive regulatory solutions.

Comparative analysis reveals alternative regulatory approaches that could inform Indian regulatory evolution, particularly the value of dedicated compensation disclosure frameworks that complement insider trading prohibitions. The U.S. emphasis on standardized disclosure, the EU’s dual-track approach, and the UK’s balanced framework each offer valuable insights.

Moving forward, SEBI should consider implementing more tailored regulatory approaches specifically addressing compensation agreements rather than relying primarily on the general PIT framework. A combination of clearer materiality thresholds, staged disclosure requirements, expanded safe harbors, and enhanced guidance mechanisms could substantially reduce the current grey zones surrounding compensation agreements under PIT regulations, while maintaining necessary regulatory flexibility.

The fundamental regulatory objective should remain enhancing market efficiency through appropriate transparency regarding arrangements that may significantly influence management incentives, corporate governance, and investor protection. By addressing the current grey zones through targeted reforms, SEBI can achieve this objective while providing greater certainty for market participants navigating this complex regulatory landscape.

The post Compensation Agreements under PIT Regulations: Legal Grey Zones appeared first on Bhatt & Joshi Associates.

Author: Aaditya Bhatt Advocate

Introduction: The Evolving Battlefield of Indian Securities Regulation

The integrity of India’s securities market is paramount, and the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) stands as its primary guardian. A cornerstone of its regulatory arsenal is the SEBI (Prohibition of Fraudulent and Unfair Trade Practices relating to Securities Market) Regulations, 2003 (PFUTP Regulations). These regulations form the bedrock for preventing manipulation, fraud, and unfair practices that can erode investor confidence and destabilize markets. However, the financial landscape is undergoing a seismic shift, driven by rapid technological advancements. The widespread adoption of sophisticated encryption in communications and the increasing dominance of algorithmic trading (Algo Trading) present formidable challenges to SEBI’s ability to effectively detect, investigate, and prosecute violations under the PFUTP Regulations. This article delves into the complex challenges posed by evolving market abuse tactics, exploring how SEBI’s PFUTP regulations are adapting to the digital era to uphold transparency and fairness.

Understanding SEBI’s PFUTP Regulations: A Shield for Market Integrity

Before exploring the challenges, it’s crucial to understand the scope of SEBI’s PFUTP Regulations. These are principle-based rules designed with a broad ambit to capture a wide range of misconduct. Key aspects include:

1. Prohibition: They prohibit any person from directly or indirectly engaging in fraudulent or unfair trade practices in the securities market.
2. Definition of Fraud: Includes acts like misrepresentation, concealment of facts, and any deceptive device or scheme employed to induce trading in securities.
3. Definition of Unfair Trade Practices: Encompasses manipulative practices, misleading statements, and actions that distort market equilibrium or harm investor interests, even if not strictly fraudulent.

This broad framework allows SEBI to address novel forms of manipulation as they emerge, including those facilitated by technology.

The Technological Gauntlet: Dual Challenges to PFUTP Enforcement

SEBI’s investigative capabilities face a two-pronged challenge from modern technology:

1. The Veil of Encryption: Obscuring Intent and Coordination

Modern communication platforms – from messaging apps to emails – increasingly employ end-to-end encryption. While crucial for user privacy, this technological shield poses a significant obstacle for regulators investigating market manipulation, insider trading, or the coordinated spread of false information designed to influence stock prices.

• The Challenge: Encrypted communications make it extremely difficult, if not impossible, for SEBI to access direct evidence of collusion or illicit information sharing. Traditional methods relying on intercepting or retrieving communication records are often rendered ineffective.
• Illustrative Context: Past SEBI investigations, such as those concerning the alleged leak of unpublished price-sensitive information (UPSI) via platforms like WhatsApp, highlighted this difficulty. Even seizing devices may not yield usable evidence if the communication content is encrypted and inaccessible. This directly impedes proving the mens rea (guilty intent) often required to establish fraud or insider trading.
• Impact: Investigators must increasingly rely on circumstantial evidence, trading pattern analysis, and connecting trades to known associates, making investigations more complex and potentially less conclusive.

2. The Algorithmic Conundrum: Speed, Complexity, and Masked Manipulation

Algorithmic trading, including High-Frequency Trading (HFT), involves using sophisticated computer programs to execute trades at speeds impossible for human traders. While contributing to market liquidity and efficiency, it also creates new avenues for manipulation that are harder to detect and prove.

• The Challenge: Algorithms can execute complex strategies involving numerous orders and cancellations across multiple platforms in milliseconds. Practices like:
  • Wash Trades: Creating artificial trading volume by simultaneously buying and selling the same security through related accounts, often executed algorithmically to mimic genuine activity.
  • Spoofing & Layering: Placing non-genuine orders to create a false impression of supply or demand, influencing prices, and then cancelling them before execution.
  • Synchronized/Circular Trading: Coordinated trading schemes executed by algorithms to manipulate prices or volumes.
• Proving Intent: A significant hurdle is proving manipulative intent behind algorithmic trades. Was a flurry of self-trades (where the same entity is both buyer and seller) an intentional wash trade designed to mislead, or an unintentional byproduct of complex HFT strategies in a liquid market? Distinguishing legitimate strategies from manipulative ones executed by autonomous programs is a major challenge for SEBI.

Applying PFUTP Principles in the Digital Age: The Intent Dilemma

The principle-based nature of the PFUTP Regulations allows flexibility, but applying them to tech-driven scenarios requires careful consideration, particularly regarding intent.

• The Rakhi Trading Precedent: The Supreme Court of India’s landmark judgment in SEBI v. Rakhi Trading (P) Ltd. (2018) [3] provides crucial guidance. While acknowledging that manipulation often involves a deliberate attempt to interfere with market forces, the Court also focused on the nature of the trades. It held that synchronized trades executed without the intention of transferring beneficial ownership were non-genuine and detrimental to market integrity, even if a direct intent to manipulate the price wasn’t conclusively proven in that specific instance.
• Shifting Focus: This suggests that SEBI can find violations under PFUTP by demonstrating that trades were artificial, non-genuine, or created a false appearance of trading activity, thereby undermining market integrity, even when proving explicit manipulative intent behind an algorithm is difficult. The effect and nature of the trade become critical factors.
• Unfairness Broadly Defined: The concept of “unfair trade practice” under Regulation 4 of PFUTP [1] provides another avenue. Algorithmic strategies that disrupt market fairness or mislead investors, even without fitting traditional manipulation definitions, could potentially be captured.

SEBI’s Counter-Strategies: Adapting to the Tech Revolution

Recognizing these challenges, SEBI is actively evolving its surveillance, investigation, and regulatory approaches:

1. Technological Arms Race: SEBI is significantly enhancing its technological capabilities. It employs sophisticated market surveillance systems, leveraging Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Data Analytics to:
   • Detect anomalous trading patterns indicative of manipulation (e.g., unusual volumes, price spikes, synchronized trades).
   • Analyze vast datasets generated by algorithmic and high-frequency trading.
   • Identify connections between traders and suspicious activities across segments.
2. Focus on Patterns and Outcomes: Given the difficulty in accessing direct evidence (like encrypted messages) or proving algorithmic intent, SEBI increasingly focuses on:
   • Trading Data Analysis: Scrutinizing patterns, timing, and the economic rationale (or lack thereof) behind trades.
   • Circumstantial Evidence: Building cases based on the timing of trades relative to information flow, the relationships between suspected parties, and the overall impact on market fairness. The Rakhi Tradingjudgment supports this focus on the observable characteristics and impact of trades.
3. Regulatory Evolution (and Considerations): SEBI continually reviews and updates its regulations.
   • Algorithmic Trading Framework: SEBI has introduced specific regulations governing algorithmic trading, requiring robust risk controls, testing, and approval processes for algorithms .
   • Past Proposals (USTA): Although not implemented, SEBI had previously floated concepts like the “Unexplained Suspicious Trading Activities” (USTA) regulations . The idea was to potentially create a framework where suspicious trading patterns coinciding with UPSI could create a rebuttable presumption of violation, shifting the onus partially onto the trader. This reflects the regulator’s thinking on addressing evidence gaps created by technology.
   • Seeking Enhanced Tools: Reports surfaced in the past regarding SEBI seeking more direct investigative powers, potentially akin to limited wiretapping authority, to tackle encrypted communications in serious fraud cases . While facing legal and privacy hurdles, this highlights the perceived need for stronger tools against technologically shielded misconduct.
4. International Cooperation: Market manipulation can be cross-border. SEBI collaborates with international counterparts through bilateral Memoranda of Understanding (MoUs) and memberships in international organizations like IOSCO (International Organization of Securities Commissions) to share information and coordinate enforcement actions .

The Balancing Act: Fostering Innovation While Ensuring Transparency

The core challenge lies in balancing the need to regulate effectively against the desire to foster technological innovation in financial markets. Overly stringent regulations could stifle beneficial advancements, while insufficient oversight can lead to market abuse. SEBI must navigate this complex terrain by:

• Upholding Market Integrity: Ensuring the primary goal remains a fair, transparent, and efficient market for all participants.
• Adaptive Regulation: Continuously monitoring technological trends and adjusting the regulatory framework proactively.
• Enhanced Surveillance: Investing in technology and expertise to keep pace with market developments.
• Respecting Boundaries: Ensuring that investigative powers are used judiciously, respecting legal and privacy norms.

Conclusion: The Road Ahead for PFUTP Enforcement

The intersection of technology and finance presents undeniable challenges to the enforcement of SEBI’s PFUTP Regulations. Encryption obscures communication trails, while the speed and complexity of algorithmic trading can mask manipulative intent. SEBI’s response involves a multi-faceted strategy: leveraging advanced technology for surveillance, focusing on the demonstrable impact and nature of trading activities (as supported by judicial precedent like Rakhi Trading), adapting regulatory frameworks, and seeking appropriate investigative tools.

The battle for market integrity in the digital age is ongoing. It requires continuous vigilance, regulatory adaptability, and a commitment to harnessing technology not just for trading, but also for effective oversight. For legal professionals, investors, and market participants, understanding this evolving landscape is crucial for navigating the complexities of India’s modern securities market.

Sources and Citations:

• The Securities and Exchange Board of India (Prohibition of Fraudulent and Unfair Trade Practices relating to Securities Market) Regulations, 2003 – Available on SEBI’s official website: SEBI Regulations (Note: Always refer to the latest version on SEBI’s website).

• SEBI Investigations on Information Leaks – Context regarding SEBI investigations into information leaks via social media/messaging apps has been widely reported. Various financial news articles from 2017-2018 discuss SEBI’s actions on WhatsApp leaks. (Suggested search: “SEBI WhatsApp leak investigation”).

• SEBI v. Rakhi Trading (P) Ltd., (2018) 13 SCC 753 – Supreme Court of India judgment. Summaries and analyses are available on legal databases and financial news sites. Relevant discussions highlight the distinction between genuine and non-genuine trades.

• SEBI Annual Reports – These reports often detail enhancements in surveillance capabilities. Access them on SEBI’s official website: SEBI Annual Reports.

• SEBI Master Circulars on Algorithmic Trading – SEBI issues Master Circulars and specific guidelines on algorithmic trading. Relevant documents can be found by searching “Algorithmic Trading” under Legal Framework → Circulars on SEBI’s website. Example: Master Circular for Stock Brokers dated May 17, 2023.

• Discussions on USTA and Suspicious Trading Frameworks – Media reports from 2018-2019 discussed SEBI’s considerations regarding frameworks like USTA for monitoring suspicious trades. Verification can be done through SEBI press releases or consultation papers from that period. (Note: As of early 2025, no specific USTA regulations have been enacted, but the challenge persists.)

• SEBI’s Pursuit of Enhanced Surveillance Powers – Reports on SEBI seeking broader surveillance powers, such as wiretapping, have surfaced periodically. Relevant discussions can be found in financial news archives (2017-2019). (Suggested search: “SEBI seeks wiretapping powers”).

• SEBI’s International Cooperation Initiatives – Information on SEBI’s international regulatory collaborations is available on its website: SEBI International Cooperation.

Disclaimer: This article provides general information and analysis. It does not constitute legal advice. Readers should consult with qualified legal professionals for specific advice pertaining to their situation. Market regulations and interpretations can change; always refer to official SEBI releases and relevant judicial pronouncements for the most current information.

The post SEBI’s PFUTP Regulations in the Digital Age: Tackling Algorithmic Abuse and Encrypted Communications appeared first on Bhatt & Joshi Associates.

Author: Aaditya Bhatt Advocate

Introduction: Market Integrity – The Cornerstone of India’s Securities Market

A robust and trustworthy securities market is vital for economic growth. Its foundation rests firmly on the principle of market integrity. This crucial concept goes beyond merely preventing illegal price fixing; it embodies fairness, transparency, the efficient discovery of prices, and, most importantly, the unwavering confidence of investors. In India, the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) is mandated to protect this integrity, primarily through regulations framed under the SEBI Act, 1992 [1]. Among the most significant tools in SEBI’s arsenal are the SEBI (Prohibition of Fraudulent and Unfair Trade Practices relating to Securities Market) Regulations, 2003 (PFUTP Regulations) [2]. While designed to combat clear-cut fraud and manipulation, the application and judicial interpretation of these regulations have evolved. There is a growing recognition that their scope extends further, safeguarding the overall health, fairness, and trustworthiness of the market ecosystem itself. This article explores this expanding definition of market integrity under the PFUTP Regulations and how it impacts market participants.

The PFUTP Regulations: A Framework Against Market Abuse

Enacted under the powers granted by the SEBI Act, 1992, the PFUTP Regulations aim to create a level playing field by prohibiting a wide array of detrimental activities. Their core objective is to outlaw practices that are:

• Fraudulent: Involving deceit, misrepresentation, or concealment of facts.
• Manipulative: Artificially affecting market prices or volumes.
• Unfair: Actions that harm investor interests or disrupt market equilibrium, even if not strictly fraudulent or manipulative.

Specifically, the regulations target practices such as [2]:

• Deliberate market manipulation and price rigging.
• Making fraudulent recommendations or inducing trading based on false information.
• Illegally disseminating false or misleading news.
• Front running: Trading based on advance knowledge of large client orders.
• Circular trading and wash trades: Creating artificial volume without genuine change in ownership.

By casting a wide net over “any act, omission, or scheme” that is deceptive or unfair in connection with securities dealing, the PFUTP Regulations provide a flexible framework to maintain a clean market.

Expanding the Horizon: Market Integrity Beyond Price Manipulation

Historically, market abuse investigations often centered on proving a direct intent and effect on security prices. However, the understanding of market integrity is broadening. Practices that might not directly manipulate the price can still severely damage the market’s perceived fairness and reliability, thus falling foul of the PFUTP Regulations.

The Rakhi Trading Turning Point

A pivotal moment in this evolution came with the Supreme Court of India’s judgment in SEBI v. Rakhi Trading Pvt. Ltd. (2018) [3]. The Court explicitly stated that SEBI’s role extends to maintaining overall market integrity, not just preventing price manipulation.

Key takeaways from this judgment include:

1. Focus on Genuineness: The Court scrutinized synchronized trades where beneficial ownership did not genuinely change hands. It held that such non-genuine trades, which create a false appearance of market activity, are detrimental to market integrity.
2. Broader Regulatory Role: It affirmed SEBI’s authority to penalize activities that undermine the market’s trustworthiness, even if proving a specific intent to manipulate the price is complex.
3. Impact on Perception: Artificial inflation of trading volumes through wash trades or circular trading can mislead investors about a stock’s liquidity or interest, distorting the fair price discovery mechanism, even if the price itself doesn’t move significantly due to these trades alone. This distortion damages market integrity.

This ruling signaled a significant shift, emphasizing that the nature and genuineness of transactions are critical components of market integrity under the PFUTP framework.

Judicial Reinforcement: Defining the Boundaries of Market Integrity

Several other judicial pronouncements have reinforced this broader interpretation of Market Integrity Under PFUTP Regulations:

• Intent vs. Impact (SEBI v. Kanaiyalal Baldevbhai Patel, 2017) [4]: The Supreme Court clarified that a specific intent to defraud isn’t always necessary for a PFUTP violation. Even actions amounting to negligence (like misrepresentation) that distort the market can breach the regulations. This highlights a focus on the impact on the market integrity and investor protection.
• Synchronized Trades (Ketan Parekh v. SEBI, 2006) [5]: The Bombay High Court recognized practices like synchronized and circular trading as inherently detrimental to market integrity and upheld SEBI’s power to penalize them, reinforcing that artificial activity itself is harmful.
• Front-Running Scope (Dolat Capital Market Pvt. Ltd. v. SEBI, SAT Appeal No. 11/2017) [6]: The Securities Appellate Tribunal (SAT) affirmed that even indirect benefits or motives could bring front-running trades under scrutiny. This emphasizes preventing any unfair advantage derived from privileged information, which inherently compromises market fairness and integrity.
• Gatekeeper Responsibility (Price Waterhouse & Co. v. SEBI, SAT Decision 2010, related to Satyam Scam)[7]: The Satyam Computers scandal case extended the reach of PFUTP. Although the final outcome regarding the specific penalties on the auditors evolved through appeals, the initial proceedings demonstrated that facilitators of fraud (like auditors involved in false disclosures) could be held accountable under PFUTP, showcasing the broad responsibility for maintaining market integrity across different participants.
• Reversal Trades (Sunita Agarwal v. SEBI, SAT Appeal No. 640 of 2022) [8]: SAT observed that reversal trades (pairs of buy and sell orders between connected parties, often resulting in minimal net change) can constitute manipulation or unfair trade practices. Such trades, especially when premeditated and synchronized, undermine ethical standards and good faith dealings, impacting market integrity.

These judgments collectively illustrate a consistent judicial trend: PFUTP regulations are interpreted not just to punish direct price manipulation but to prohibit any practice that erodes investor confidence, creates artificial market conditions, distorts genuine price discovery, or confers unfair advantages, thereby safeguarding the holistic integrity of the market.

Adapting to Modern Challenges: SEBI’s Evolving Vigilance

The financial markets are constantly evolving, driven by technology and new communication methods. SEBI is continuously adapting its approach to protect market integrity against emerging threats:

• Technological Surveillance: SEBI heavily invests in and utilizes Artificial Intelligence (AI) and advanced data analytics to monitor trading activity, detect complex manipulative patterns, and identify suspicious connections that might indicate PFUTP violations [9].
• Social Media Scrutiny: The rise of “finfluencers” and the rapid spread of information (and misinformation) via social media platforms like WhatsApp, Telegram, and X (formerly Twitter) present new challenges. SEBI is increasingly vigilant about stock recommendations, rumors, and coordinated actions on these platforms that could manipulate prices or unfairly influence investors [10].
• Intermediary Accountability: There is a greater focus on the role and responsibility of market intermediaries (brokers, analysts, investment advisors) in upholding market integrity and ensuring they do not facilitate or engage in unfair trade practices.
• Proactive Regulatory Thinking (USTA Concept): Although not yet implemented as formal regulations, SEBI’s past exploration of frameworks like the Prohibition of Unexplained Suspicious Trading Activities (USTA) [11] signals its intent. Such concepts aim to address situations where suspicious trading coincides with access to sensitive information, potentially shifting the onus and making it easier to tackle insider trading or front-running where direct evidence is obscured, further prioritizing market integrity.

Conclusion: A Dynamic Commitment to Fair and Transparent Markets

The SEBI (PFUTP) Regulations, 2003, are far more than a simple anti-manipulation rulebook. Through ongoing regulatory refinement by SEBI and interpretive guidance from the judiciary, their scope has clearly expanded to protect the broader concept of market integrity under PFUTP regulations. The focus has shifted towards ensuring overall market fairness, transparency, and the prevention of any practice that could mislead investors or undermine confidence, even if direct price manipulation isn’t the sole or primary outcome.

SEBI’s proactive surveillance and enforcement actions, coupled with judicial emphasis on the genuineness of transactions and the prevention of unfair advantages, underscore this commitment. For investors, intermediaries, and listed companies alike, understanding this holistic view of market integrity is crucial. As the Indian securities market continues its dynamic evolution, the PFUTP Regulations will remain a vital instrument in fostering an environment built on trust, fairness, and enduring investor confidence.

Sources and Citations:

1. The Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 – Available on the SEBI website: SEBI Act, 1992 (Refer to official SEBI publications for the standalone Act).
2. The Securities and Exchange Board of India (Prohibition of Fraudulent and Unfair Trade Practices relating to Securities Market) Regulations, 2003 – Available on the SEBI website: PFUTP Regulations, 2003 (Always check for the latest version).
3. SEBI v. Rakhi Trading (P) Ltd., (2018) 13 SCC 753 – Supreme Court of India. Full text and analyses available on legal databases like SCC Online, Manupatra, etc.
4. SEBI v. Kanaiyalal Baldevbhai Patel, (2017) 15 SCC 1 – Supreme Court of India. Available on legal databases.
5. Ketan Parekh v. SEBI, (2006) SCC Online Bom 513 – Bombay High Court. Available on legal databases.
6. Dolat Capital Market Pvt. Ltd. v. SEBI – Appeal No. 11/2017, Securities Appellate Tribunal (SAT), Order dated 09.03.2018. Available on the SAT website: SAT Orders.
7. Price Waterhouse & Co. v. SEBI – Appeal No. 8 of 2010, SAT Order dated 05.10.2010 (related to the Satyam case). Available on the SAT website.
8. Sunita Agarwal v. SEBI – Appeal No. 640 of 2022, SAT Order dated 16.12.2022. Available on the SAT website.
9. These often detail enhancements in surveillance and IT capabilities. Available at: SEBI Annual Reports.
10. SEBI’s Warnings and Actions on Social Media Manipulation – SEBI has issued warnings and taken action related to social media misuse. Search SEBI press releases and news archives for terms such as “SEBI social media manipulation” or “SEBI finfluencers”.
11.  Discussions and proposals regarding USTA or similar concepts appeared in financial media and potentially SEBI consultation papers around 2018-2019. Check SEBI’s archives for specific documents if needed. This reflects regulatory thinking, even if not enacted as distinct regulations.

The post SEBI PFUTP Regulations 2003: Beyond Manipulation — Insider & Disclosure appeared first on Bhatt & Joshi Associates.