Proposed Amendments to Insider Trading Regulations by SEBI: An Interpretive Study of the Changing Characteristic of Connected Individuals
Through its July 29, 2024 consultation paper, the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) has suggested major changes to the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Prohibition of Insider Trading) Regulations 2015 (PIT Regulations). Particularly addressing the concept of “connected person” under Section 2(1)(d), these modifications fundamentally change India’s insider trading laws. The legal consequences, possible difficulties, and wider influence of these suggested amendments on market players and regulatory enforcement are investigated in this paper.
Legal Framework and Historical Context
Progressive strengthening of regulatory control has defined the development of insider trading rules in India. The Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 enabled SEBI to control insider trading, hence guiding the development of the first all-encompassing rules in 1992. Introduced more strictly and with clearer definitions, the new PIT Regulations, passed in 2015, replaced the SEBI (Prohibition of Insider Trading) Regulations, 1992.
Declaring that “insider trading is not only unethical but also illegal as it affects the integrity and efficiency of the capital markets,” the Supreme Court’s historic ruling in SEBI v. Rakesh Agrawal (2004) underlined the need of preserving market integrity by means of combating insider trading. In this field, this court viewpoint has regularly shaped regulatory changes.
Examining suggested changes to the connected person definition
Particularly the Companies Act, 2013, the suggested changes try to harmonise the definition of “connected person” with equivalent ideas in other financial laws. The PIT Regulations’ present structure under Section 2(1)(d) distinguishes between “connected persons” and those “deemed to be connected persons.” The changes suggest to blur this line since they acknowledge that the degree of proximity between parties should define the outcome more than technical classification.
A major alteration entails substituting “relative,” for “immediate relative,” therefore introducing a new Section 2(1)(hc). This more inclusive definition includes:
- Wife
- Sister or siblings and their partners
- Sisters of a spouse
- Parents’ children’s siblings
- Lineal ascendants, either of the individual or the spouse
- Couples from the specified groups
This more general interpretation conforms to Schedule IA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and Section 2(77) of the Companies Act, 2013, therefore fostering more consistency in financial rules. In Hindustan Lever Employee’s Union v. Hindustan Lever Limited (1995), the Supreme Court underlined the need of harmonic reading of linked statute provisions, therefore supporting this regulatory alignment.
Proof of burden: a paradigm change
One important procedural change suggested in the changes has to do with the burden of proof in investigations on insider trading. While connected persons must prove their innocence, the existing Section 4(2) of the PIT Regulations lays the responsibility on SEBI when handling non-affiliated individuals. The proposed amendment brings this reverse burden of proof to anyone “deemed to be connected persons.”
Examined in light of Article 21 of the Constitution and ideas of natural justice, this change has to be In Sahara India Real Estate Corporation Ltd. v. SEBI (2012), the Supreme Court stressed the need of equitable procedural protections even while it maintained SEBI’s regulatory authority. The suggested amendment begs issues regarding the harmony between individual liberties and regulatory effectiveness.
The “Household or Residence” Riddle
Significant interpretation difficulties arise in Section 2(1)(d)(ii)(n), extending connected person status to “persons sharing household or residence with a connected person,” Unlike its European equivalent, which lays a one-year cohabitation requirement in Article 3(26) of the EU Market Abuse Regulation, the SEBI plan lacks temporal restrictions.
Lack of a precise definition of “household” generates possible legal ambiguity. Although related court rulings and the Income Tax Act, 1961 offer some direction, their main emphasis is on “residential house property” for tax considerations. The case of ITO v. Smt. Rohini Reddy shows that while residential status is determined in great part by purpose and permanence, these ideas might not immediately apply to insider trading rules.
Balance of Balram Garg v. SEBI: Regulatory Reaction and Evidential Standards
These suggested changes were significantly inspired by the Supreme Court’s ruling in Balram Garg v. SEBI (2024). Particularly regarding tipper-tippee links, the case underlined how insufficient simple circumstantial evidence is in proving insider trading offences. The Court’s focus on needing strong evidence has driven SEBI to suggest changing the burden of proof.
This change begs serious issues concerning the level of proof needed from charged people. Based on its rulings on reverse burden clauses established in Noor Aga v. State of Punjab (2008), the Supreme Court mandates that such clauses have to be reasonable and appropriate. The difficulty is juggling due process and fairness against regulatory efficacy.
Comparative Study Using Global Standards
Though they deviate greatly from international norms, the proposed changes reflect a worldwide trend towards tougher insider trading rules. Rather than predefined categories of related persons, the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and later court interpretations—especially in Dirks v. SEC (1983)—emphasize the existence of a fiduciary duty.
With well defined temporal and relational limits, the European Union’s Market Abuse Regulation (MAR) offers a more ordered method of classifying related persons. Although thorough, the suggested SEBI changes may benefit from including comparable clarity in identifying linkages and time constraints.
pragmatic consequences for market players
New compliance issues for market players arise from the enlarged definition of connected individuals. Corporate bodies have to change their insider trading rules to reflect the larger range of protected people. Maintaining and tracking trading activity among a larger circle of relatives and household members could cause major administrative headaches.
Challenges in Enforcement and Solutions
While perhaps improving SEBI’s enforcement powers, the more general definition of related persons could also provide practical difficulties for prosecution and inquiry. Dealing with comparable concerns of corporate control and related persons, the experience of the SEBI (Substantial Acquisition of Shares and Takeovers) Regulations, 2011 indicates that efficient enforcement depends on well defined policies and standardised practices.
Suggestions for Changes
Several changes to the suggested revisions could be taken under consideration in order to handle the found difficulties:
- Temporal Definition: Like the EU MAR, with certain time constraints for house/residence sharing
- Using varying degrees of examination depending on the type and closeness of relationships, follows a graduated approach.
- Safe Harbour Provisions: Adding explicit exemptions for remote relatives without actual access to unpublished price sensitive information (UPSI) engaged in legal trade transactions.
- Establishing explicit rules for evidence needs when the accused bears the burden of proof helps to safeguard procedures.
In essence, conclusion
The suggested changes by SEBI to the PIT Regulations mark a major departure in India’s insider trading laws. Although the extension of the “connected person” definition and the change in burden of proof should improve regulatory control, these developments have to be weighed against ideas of fairness, practicality, and legal clarity.
The execution of these adjustments and the evolution of unambiguous rules for market players will define their success. Insider trading gets more complex, hence regulatory systems have to change to balance sensible compliance loads with efficient enforcement.
Although the suggested improvements have great ambition in scope, they would benefit from more improvement to handle the found difficulties, especially with regards to the definition of household relationships and evidential criteria. A strong and sensible insider trading regulatory framework for India’s changing capital markets will be shaped by ongoing communication between regulators, market players, and legal experts as these revisions progress through the consultation process.
Author Bio
