SEBI has proposed a comprehensive overhaul of the framework for transmission of securities by amending the LODR Regulations, 2015 to simplify documentation, standardise procedures, and enhance investor convenience, particularly for legal heirs. The proposal raises the thresholds for simplified documentation to ₹10 lakh for physical securities and ₹30 lakh for dematerialised holdings, while introducing a new Quick Transmission Processing (QTP) mechanism for low-value claims up to ₹10,000 (physical) and ₹30,000 (demat) with minimal documentation. It also standardises claim procedures, documentation, timelines, and acceptance of death certificates, including those issued overseas, and removes the mandatory probate requirement in uncontested cases in line with amendments to the Indian Succession Act, 1925. SEBI further proposes operational circulars, online claim submission, standard forms, and clearer documentation requirements to reduce delays and inconsistencies across intermediaries. The reforms aim to facilitate faster, transparent, and uniform transmission of securities while retaining safeguards against fraud and disputed claims.
Also Read SEBI Press Release No. 33/2026 Dated: 19/06/2026: SEBI Approves Major Regulatory Reforms to Simplify Securities Market Processes
Securities and Exchange Board of India
Dated: 19th June 2026
Simplifying and standardising the framework for transmission of securities
1. Objective:
1.1. This memorandum seeks approval of the Board to amend the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Listing Obligations and Disclosure Requirements) Regulations, 2015 (“LODR Regulations”) and for issuing necessary operational circulars with the objective of simplifying and standardising the framework for transmission of securities.
2. Background:
2.1. The extant framework governing transmission of securities is prescribed under Schedule VII of the LODR Regulations and, inter alia, lays down the procedural and documentation requirements to be complied with for processing transmission requests.
2.2. SEBI has consistently encouraged investors to avail nomination facility, as registration of nomination enables smooth and expeditious transmission of securities to the nominee with relatively minimal documentation.
2.3. In cases where nomination has not been registered, the existing framework provides a simplified documentation route up to specified monetary thresholds. At present, the threshold limits are:
| Mode of holding | Existing simplified documentation threshold |
| Physical securities | ₹5 lakh per listed entity* |
| Dematerialised securities | ₹15 lakh per beneficial owner |
*Can be increased at the discretion of the listed entity
2.4. Over a period of time, SEBI has received feedback and representations from investors, listed entities, Registrar and Share Transfer Agents (“RTAs”) etc. that varying practices are being followed in processing transmission requests. Such inconsistencies have resulted in uncertainty and procedural difficulties for survivors and legal heirs seeking transmission of securities.
2.5. Further, stakeholders have highlighted concerns regarding:
| Issue | Concerns raised by stakeholders |
| Documentation burden |
Extensive documents are sought even in low-value or simple cases. |
| Procedural delays | Succession-related documents often take significant time to obtain. |
| Legal heirship certificates | Ambiguity exists regarding competent authorities and acceptable formats. |
| Threshold limits | Existing thresholds are inadequate in view of growth in market values. |
| Probate of wills | Probate is insisted upon in certain cases even where it is not mandatory. |
| Overseas death certificates | Operational difficulties arise in obtaining certified death certificates in overseas jurisdictions. |
2.6. While robust due diligence is necessary to prevent fraudulent claims, wrongful transmission and avoidable litigation, the existing process, in certain cases, has resulted in additional procedural burden for claimants, particularly bereaved family members.
2.7. In view of the above and with an objective to enhance ease of investing and streamline the process for transmission of securities, it has been considered necessary to review the extant transmission framework to provide a harmonised, standardised and risk-based process for transmission of securities, particularly with regard to:
2.7.1. Revision of monetary threshold limits for transmission of securities under the simplified documentation framework and introduction of straight through processing for low value cases;
2.7.2. Standardisation of documentation requirements; and
2.7.3. Standardisation of procedure for submission of claims.
3. Deliberations with market participants and public consultation
3.1. The proposals mentioned at Para 2.7 were deliberated with the Industry Standards Forum for RTAs, Depositories and AMFI.
3.2. In order to seek public comments on the proposed framework, a consultation paper titled “Ease of investing – Simplification of documentation requirement for transmission of securities and revision in threshold limits for simplified documentation” was issued on March 12, 2026 (Annexure-A). The consultation period ended on April 02, 2026.
3.3. A total of 142 responses were received on the proposals, out of which 123 responses (86%) were in agreement, 8 responses (6%) were in disagreement, whereas 11 responses (8%) did not indicate their agreement/disagreement. (This has been excised for reasons of confidentiality.)
3.4. SEBI has considered all the feedback received carefully and has incorporated the feedback in the proposal, where appropriate. Comments that are of wider interest, together with SEBI’s responses, are set out in subsequent paragraphs.
4. Proposed framework for transmission of securities:
4.1. Revision of monetary threshold limits under the simplified documentation framework and introduction of straight through processing for low value cases
4.1.1 Present framework
Schedule VII of the LODR Regulations provides a simplified documentation route up to a specified monetary threshold for cases where nomination has not been registered. A tabular depiction is given below:
| Physical securities
Rs. 5 Lacs per listed entity |
Dematerialised securities
Rs. 15 Lacs per beneficial owner |
4.1.2 Need for review
4.1.2.1 The existing limits for simplified documentation were set in time and there is a need to review the current limits given the exponential growth in the securities market and increased asset prices. To keep up with this and as measure of ease of restitution of assets to survivors of the deceased investors, the limits for availing simplified documentation for transmission need to be revised.
4.1.2.2 Further, for very low-value holdings, the cost and effort involved in obtaining the required documentation may be disproportionate to the value of securities being transmitted.
4.1.3 Proposed framework
4.1.3.1 It is proposed to revise the thresholds for availing simplified documentation for transmission and also introduce a separate low value category for straight-through processing, with minimal documentation, to further ease out claims for extremely small holdings.
4.1.3.2 The proposed limits for simplified and straight through processing claims for securities are as below:
| Claims threshold
under Straight through processing* |
Claims threshold
under simplified documentation |
|||
| (₹ in Thousands) | (₹ in Lakhs) | |||
| Type of holding | Existing | Proposed | Existing | Proposed |
| Securities in
physical mode** |
Nil | 10 | 5 | 10*** |
| Securities in
dematerialised mode# |
Nil | 30 | 15 | 30 |
* New category for small investors
** Per listed entity/Mutual Fund (MF) units in Statement of Account (SOA) mode per AMC
*** Listed entity may, at its discretion, enhance the value of securities from the threshold limit of rupees ten lakhs, in case of securities held in physical mode.
# Per beneficial owner
4.1.3.3 This measure is expected to greatly reduce the procedural burden for a large majority of investors.
4.1.4 Summary of public comments:
i. The statistics on public comments received is tabulated below:
| Strongly agree | Agree | Partially Agree | Disagree | Strongly Disagree | No
indication |
Total |
| 12 | 14 | 12 | 2 | 0 | 4 | 44 |
ii. The public comments received are largely in favour of the proposal. Some have also provided additional suggestions on the proposals. Major concerns and suggestions are addressed in the subsequent paragraphs.
iii. One respondent disagreed with the option to introduce STP considering that there may be potential risk of fraud and subsequent litigation.
iv. One respondent stated that the proposed STP limits does not offer relief to investors of companies with high share price and suggested that it should be linked to a market index.
v. Suggestion was received to provide clarity on the value of the securities which is to be considered while ascertaining threshold limit.
4.1.5 SEBI’s response
i. The framework proposes to introduce STP only for very low-value cases with minimal anticipated risk, coupled with safeguards such as identity verification and indemnity. The benefits in terms of ease of investing and reduction in processing burden are expected to outweigh residual risks and accordingly the proposal to introduce STP may be retained.
ii. Linking the threshold limits to a market index may not be desirable as it would introduce operational complexity and inconsistency in processing of transmission requests. Thresholds for simplified documentation, including STP, should remain stable, predictable and easy to administer and accordingly the public comment may not be accepted.
iii. Based on feedback received and in order to provide clarity, it may be specified that for ascertaining threshold limits, the value of securities may be quantified by the claimant on the basis of the previous closing price of such securities at any one of the recognized stock exchanges.
4.1.6 Proposal for Board approval:
Based on public comments and internal deliberations, the following thresholds are submitted for approval of the Board:
| Claims threshold
under Straight through processing* |
Claims threshold
under simplified documentation |
|||
| (₹ in Thousands) | (₹ in Lakhs) | |||
| Type of holding | Existing | Proposed | Existing | Proposed |
| Securities in
physical mode ** |
Nil | 10 | 5 | 10*** |
| Securities in | ||||
| dematerialised mode# | Nil | 30 | 15 | 30 |
* New category for small investors
** Per listed entity/Mutual Fund (MF)/Specialized Investment Fund (SIF) units in Statement of Account (SOA) form per AMC
*** Listed entity may, at its discretion, enhance the value of securities from the threshold limit of rupees ten lakhs, in case of securities held in physical mode.
# Per beneficial owner for securities
4.1.6.1 The value of securities shall be quantified by the claimant on the basis of the previous closing price of such securities at any one of the recognized stock exchanges.
4.2 Standardisation of documentation requirements:
4.2.1 Present framework
4.2.1.1 Presently, the transmission cases are categorised in two parts-
i. Cases where nomination has been made;
ii. Cases where there is no nomination which is further categorised into (a) cases with simplified documentation for certain thresholds; and (b) cases above thresholds.
4.2.1.2 Common documentation presently required for all cases are as follows:
i. transmission request form by the nominee/claimant;
ii. death certificate;
iii. self-attested copy of the PAN of nominee/claimant, as the case may be.
For cases other than where there is a nomination, a notarized affidavit, in the specified format from all legal heir(s) made on non-judicial stamp paper of appropriate value, to the effect of identification and claim of legal ownership to the securities. However, in case the legal heir(s)/claimant(s) are named in Succession Certificate or Probate of Will or Will or Letter of Administration or Legal Heirship Certificate(or its equivalent certificate for transmission of securities, an affidavit from such legal heir(s)/claimant(s) alone shall be sufficient.
4.2.1.3 Further, for cases with simplified documentation upto certain thresholds, and where there is no nomination, additionally, the following documents are required:
i. notarized indemnity bond indemnifying the processing entity; and
ii. NOC from all legal heir(s) or copy of family settlement deed executed by all the legal heirs, duly attested by a notary public or by a gazetted officer.
4.2.1.4 For cases above prescribed thresholds, claimant has to provide, in addition to the documents mentioned at Para 4.2.1.2, a copy of Succession Certificate or Probate of Will or Will or Letter of Administration or Court Decree as may be applicable in terms of Indian Succession Act, 1925(39of 1925) or Legal Heirship Certificate or its equivalent certificate.
4.2.1.5 In cases where the claimant provides a will or LHC, the claimant has to also submit a notarized indemnity bond from the legal heir(s) /claimant(s) to whom the securities are transmitted. In case of LHC, additionally the claimant has to submit a No Objection from all non-claimants, stating that they have relinquished their rights to the claim for transmission of securities.
4.2.2 Need for review
4.2.2.1 The claims process becomes complicated and cumbersome in case of absence of nomination or will as in such cases, the intermediary acts in trust. Hence, the intermediary tends to take strict precautionary and protective measures to ensure that the assets are not falsely claimed and secondly to ensure that the intermediary is indemnified and is not dragged into unwarranted protracted litigations by the claimants/ heirs. Unfortunately, the rigorous verification steps often make the transmission process complex and time-consuming.
4.2.2.2 In order to alleviate the issues faced by the claimants in such situations, it is critical to provide for transparent and predictable claims procedures with standardised documentation so that claimants know the trajectory of the claims journey.
4.2.2.3 With this being the objective, a risk based approach to such claims process is proposed to be adopted with standardised documentation for simplification of the transmission process.
4.2.2.4 Further, it may be mentioned that Section 213 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 which earlier required probate of wills for establishing rights as executor or legatee in specified jurisdictions viz. Mumbai, Chennai and Kolkata in respect of wills made by specified communities, viz. Hindus, Parsis, Sikhs and Jains, has been omitted with effect from December 20, 2025. The said amendment removes the mandatory requirement of probate and is aimed at simplifying succession processes and reducing associated delays and costs. In view of this amendment, there is a need to review the requirement of probate of will for transmission process.
4.2.3 Proposed framework
4.2.3.1 In view of above, along with the documents mentioned Sr. no. a, b and c at Para 4.2.1.2 , the following changes are proposed:
a. the nominee/claimant will provide the latest client master list (‘CML’) of his/her demat account which shall not be older than two months, attested by a Depository Participant (‘DP’), to effect direct credit of securities into the respective demat account.
b. for the proposed category of straight through processing, the claimant will provide an undertaking as per specified format on a plain paper.
c. the requirement of a notarized affidavit, in the specified format from all legal heir(s) to the effect of identification and claim of legal ownership to the securities shall apply only to cases above threshold for simplified documentation.
d. for claims not falling under simplified documentation and where there are no disputes, the requirement of probated will is proposed to be removed.
e. death certificate shall be accepted if verifiable through any of the following modes:
i. an original death certificate or copy of death certificate attested by the nominee subject to verification with the original;
ii. copy of death certificate duly attested by a notary public or by a gazetted officer;
iii. death certificate with Quick Response (QR) code.
4.2.4 Summary of public comments
i. Public Comments: The statistics on public comments received is tabulated below:
| Strongly agree | Agree | Partially Agree | Disagree | Strongly Disagree | No
indication |
Total |
| 10 | 18 | 18 | 3 | 1 | 3 | 53 |
ii. The public comments received are largely in favour of the proposal. Some have also provided additional suggestions on the proposals. Major concerns and suggestions are addressed in subsequent paragraphs.
iii. One respondent raised concern regarding acceptance of Letter of Administration (LoA) stating that the same does not determine the rights of the beneficiaries.
iv. Six respondents raised concerns regarding removal of Probate of Will. Suggestions were received to allow AMCs to continue accepting probated will or succession certificate in cases above Rs. 15 Lakhs and restrict acceptance of Legal Heirship Certificate upto an amount of Rs. 15 Lakhs.
v. One respondent suggested that the option to avail the facility of straight through processing should be restricted only to immediate relatives such as parents, spouse and children and appropriate identification documents should be required.
vi. The above respondent also suggested that the framework should also provide clarity on the applicable stamp duty.
vii. One respondent suggested that in cases other than STP, acceptance of family settlement deed accepted and approved by a magistrate or a civil court judge, may be allowed as an additional option.
viii. Two respondents suggested mandatory submission of notarised affidavit and indemnity bond even for cases eligible for simplified documentation.
4.2.5 SEBI’s response
i. LoA is a court-issued document granting legal authority to an individual to manage and distribute the estate of a deceased person. Acceptance of LoA is already in place as per the existing framework and the same is being followed by the entities. SEBI has not received any representation to change this requirement. Hence, the same is proposed to be retained.
ii. The framework proposes to remove requirement of probate of Will in view of recent amendment in Indian Succession Act, 1925 removing the mandatory probate for Hindus, Buddhists, Sikhs, Jains, and Parsis in Mumbai, Chennai, and Kolkata. Also, in case the claimant provides a Will, the same has to be accompanied by a notarized indemnity bond from the legal heir(s)/claimant(s) indemnifying the processing entity. However, based on public feedback and in order to appropriately address concerns related to frauds, it is proposed that processing entities may, for cases above threshold for simplified documentation, seek additional documents over and above those prescribed by SEBI, if so required. It is also proposed that the requirement of probated will shall continue to remain for cases where there is any dispute or contesting claims.
iii. LHC is already an acceptable document for transmission when accompanied with notarised indemnity bond and NOC. In order to duly address the concerns regarding use of LHC, it is proposed that processing entities may, for cases above threshold for simplified documentation, seek additional documents over and above those prescribed by SEBI, if so required.
iv. The objective of the proposal for simplified documentation for certain thresholds is to reduce hardship for low and moderate value cases by allowing alternative documents while retaining safeguards such as indemnity, NOC and due diligence.
v. While it was initially proposed that affidavit shall be applicable only for claims above threshold, based on feedback, it is proposed to retain the requirement for all cases except for STP. Further, in order to ease out the process for claimants, it is proposed to have a single document which would address both the identification and claim of legal ownership to the securities and communication of no-objection from all non-claimant heirs, instead of having separate affidavit and NOC for similar purposes.
vi. The suggestion regarding restricting STP only to immediate relatives viz. parents, spouse, children and parents-in-law and submission of document establishing relationship between the claimant and the deceased security holder may be accepted to mitigate the risk of fraud since the process involves minimum documentation.
vii. The suggestion regarding providing clarity on the applicable stamp duty is noted. Accordingly, it may be specified that the non-judicial stamp paper will be of the appropriate value as specified under the Stamp Act of the state where the claimant resides. This will be in line with the method being followed for issuance of duplicate securities.
viii. The suggestion regarding acceptance of family settlement deed accepted and approved by a magistrate or a civil court judge may be accepted. This would provide ease to investors.
4.2.6 Proposal for Board approval: Based on the feedback received in public consultation and subsequent discussions held internally, the proposed documentation requirement has been revised. In view of above, it is proposed that:
4.2.6.1 For the proposed category of straight through processing, in addition to the mandatory documents required for transmission, the claimant will provide:
i. an undertaking as per specified format on a plain paper along with the mandatory documents; and
ii. a document establishing a relationship between the deceased and the claimant.
4.2.6.2 For simplified cases other than cases under Straight Through Processing, the claimant can provide a copy of family settlement deed accepted and approved by the court magistrate or civil court judge, in addition to such deed executed by all the legal heirs and duly attested by a notary public or gazetted Officer.
4.2.6.3 For claims not falling under the simplified procedure and where there no disputes, the requirement of probate is proposed to be removed.
4.2.6.4 It is proposed that processing entities may, for cases above threshold for simplified documentation, seek additional documents over and above those prescribed by SEBI, if so required.
4.2.6.5 A simplified grid for documentation requirement is given below for easy reference.
| Item | Document required from claimant (duly signed / executed) | STP | Simplified | Above Threshold |
| A | Common documents (mandatory in all cases) | |||
| 1 | Transmission request form | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ |
| 2 | Latest Client Master List (CML) of the claimant’s demat account, not older than two months, attested by Depository Participant (DP) | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ |
| 3 | Verifiable death certificate of the deceased security holder | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ |
| 4 | Officially Valid ID proof of the claimant | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ |
| 5 | Original security certificate/statement of SOA | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ |
| 6 | Copy of Birth Certificate (in case the nominee/claimant/legal heir is a minor) | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ |
| 7 | KYC of the Claimant Guardian (in case of nominee /claimant being a minor / of unsound mind) | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ |
| B | Relationship proof (STP only) | |||
| 8 | Document evidencing relationship between the claimant and the deceased security holder (applicable only where claimant is parent, spouse, child or parent-in-law) |
✔ | — | — |
| 9 | Undertaking on plain paper as per format to be specified | ✔ | — | — |
| C | Indemnity and consent (Simplified) |
|||
| 10 | Notarised indemnity bond indemnifying the RTA / listed entity/AMC as may be applicable | — | ✔ | — |
| 11 | Notarised affidavit cum NOC from all*
legal heirs, confirming identification and claim of legal ownership to the securities and no objection OR copy of family settlement deed executed by all legal heirs, duly attested by a notary public, gazetted officer, or accepted and approved by a magistrate, judge or civil court. *In case the legal heir(s)/claimant(s) are named in the Succession Certificate or Letter of Administration or Legal Heirship Certificate (or its equivalent certificate), an Affidavit from such legal heir(s)/claimant(s), duly Notarised, shall be sufficient. However, in such cases, NOC from non-claimants will be applicable. |
— | ✔ | — |
| D | Additional documents (Above Threshold only) | |||
| 12 | Notarised affidavit cum NOC from all legal heirs, confirming identification and claim of legal ownership to the securities and no objection | — | — | ✔ |
| 13
|
Any ONE of the following succession documents:
Copy of Will as may be applicable in terms of Indian Succession Act,1925, along with a notarized indemnity bond from the legal heir(s)/claimant(s) to whom the securities have to be transmitted, as per the format specified OR Legal Heirship Certificate or its equivalent, along with a notarized indemnity bond from the legal heir (s)/claimant(s) to whom the securities have to be transmitted, as per the specified format; and OR Copy of Succession certificate or Letter of Administration or Court Decree. |
—
|
—
|
✔
|
Note: The processing entities may, for cases above threshold for simplified documentation, seek additional documents over and above those prescribed by SEBI, if so required.
4.2.6.6 Formats for Affidavit cum NOC/NOC, Indemnity Bond and declarations shall be specified by SEBI.
4.3 Standardisation of procedure for submission of claims
4.3.1 Present framework
4.3.1.1 While the existing framework specifies the time limit of 21 days for processing of transmission requests, the detailed procedure for submission and processing of claims is not explicitly specified leading to varying practices for processing of such claims.
4.3.1.2 Further, in case of death of a security holder in foreign jurisdiction, the existing framework prescribes certain modes for attestation of death certificate issued by foreign authority. It is noted that such specified modes may be time-consuming and difficult for the claimants.
4.3.2 Need for review
4.3.2.1 It is learnt that in absence of a standardised procedure, the processing entities are taking different approach in accepting and processing the transmission requests leading to varied practices resulting in inconvenience to investors.
4.3.2.2 Based on the feedback from investors, it is felt that there is a need to standardise the procedure.
4.3.2.3 Further, to ease the claim process for NRI claimants, it is also proposed to specify additional modes for attestation of death certificate in case of death of the security holder in foreign jurisdiction.
4.3.3 Proposed framework: The proposed framework specifies the following:
4.3.3.1 Mandatory usage of standardised forms by the entities to be specified by SEBI
4.3.3.2 Acknowledgement of receipt of claims and intimation to claimants regarding any pending or missing or incomplete documents.
4.3.3.3 Confirmation to claimants about receipt of complete documentation. 4.3.3.4 Optional facility for online submission of claims for easy tracking and fast processing.
4.3.3.5 In addition to existing modes, following modes for attestation of death certificate in case of death of security holder in overseas jurisdiction: 4.3.3.5.1 Certification by authorised officials of overseas branches of Scheduled Commercial Banks registered in India.
4.3.3.5.2 Certification by authorised officials of any foreign bank. 4.3.3.6 Clarity on timelines for processing of claims within 21 calendar days and communication to claimants, along with reasons, for any delay.
4.3.4 Summary of public comments
i. The statistics on public comments received is tabulated below:
| Strongly agree | Agree | Partially Agree | Disagree | Strongly Disagree | No indication | Total |
| 13 | 15 | 11 | 2 | 0 | 4 | 45 |
ii. The public comments received are largely in favour of the proposal. Some have also provided additional suggestions on the proposals. Major concerns and suggestions are addressed in subsequent paragraphs.
iii. Few respondents suggested that in case of death of the security holder outside India, translation of death certificate into English and submission of certified copy of such translated death certificate along with copy of the original death certificate may be required to be submitted.
iv. One respondent suggested with regard to attestation of death certificate by a foreign bank, clause may be modified to say foreign bank with branch or operations in India.
4.3.5 SEBI’s response
i. In order to ensure ease of processing of transmission requests for the processing entity, in case of death of the securities holder outside India, the suggestion regarding translation of death certificate into English and submission of self-certified copy of such translated death certificate by the claimant, is proposed to be considered.
ii. With regard to the suggestion on attestation by foreign bank with branch or operations in India, it is proposed to allow attestation of death certificate of the deceased by branches of overseas banks with whom Indian banks have correspondent banking relationships. This would be in line with RBI directions.
4.3.6 Proposal for Board approval – Based on public comments and internal deliberations, it is proposed to specify the provisions stated in para 4.3.3 above under operational framework. It is also proposed to specify under operational framework that, in case of death of the securities holder outside India, the claimant shall submit self-certified copy of translation of death certificate into English if original death certificate is issued in any other language. Further, it is proposed to allow attestation of death certificate of the deceased by branches of overseas banks with whom Indian banks have correspondent banking relationships.
4.4 Other Proposals to the Board
4.4.1 Applicability
i. In order to have uniformity across intermediaries for transmission of securities, and in order to ensure ease of investing, it is proposed that framework shall apply to listed securities and units issued by AMCs with respect to the thresholds for simplified documentation to be followed for transmission of securities, standardisation of documentation and procedure for submission of claims.
ii. The proposed framework shall not apply where there is any dispute or contesting/competing claims. In such cases, the claimants shall be required to resolve the matter through appropriate judicial or legal proceedings.
4.4.2 Rule of Survivorship
i. For transmission of securities to the surviving joint holder(s), RTAs/listed entity shall continue to comply with clause 23 of Table F in Schedule read with Section 56(2) & 56(4)(c) of the Companies Act, 2013, and transmit securities in favour of surviving Joint holder(s), in the event of demise of one or more joint holder(s), provided that there is nothing contrary in the Articles of Association of the company.
4.4.3 Amendment to LODR Regulations and issuance of operational circular
4.4.3.1 Para C of Schedule VII of the LODR Regulations which currently contains the procedural requirements for transmission of securities, is proposed to be deleted. In order to facilitate implementation of the proposed framework and in view of the fact that the provisions are operational in nature, it is proposed to issue the provisions through a circular. In view of the same, consequential amendments to Regulations 40(7) and 61(4) of the LODR Regulations are also proposed.
4.4.3.2 The present and proposed provisions of regulation 40(7) and 61(4) of LODR Regulations are placed at Annexure–C for consideration and approval. The draft notification of LODR Regulations is placed at Annexure-D.
4.4.3.3 The proposed operational framework, subject to such modifications or updates as the Board may specify from time to time, is placed at Annexure-E.
4 Proposal for consideration:
4.1 The Board is requested to:
4.1.1 consider and approve the recommendations stated at paragraph 4.1.6, 4.2.6, 4.3.6 and 4.4 to suitably amend the LODR Regulations and issue operational guidelines through a circular.
4.1.2 authorize the Chairperson to take necessary steps to implement the proposals including notification of amendments, issuing circulars, wherever necessary with consequential and appropriate changes, as may be required.
Encl.:
Annexure-A – Consultation Paper on “Ease of investing – Simplification of documentation requirement for transmission of securities and revision in threshold limits for simplified documentation”
Annexure-B – (This has been excised for reasons of confidentiality.)
Annexure-C – Present and proposed provisions of LODR Regulations
Annexure-D – Draft notification of LODR Regulations
Annexure-E – Draft operational framework
Simplifying and standardising the framework for transmission of securities
5. Objective
This addendum proposes certain changes in the Board Memorandum No. 39/2026 titled “Simplifying and standardising the framework for transmission of securities”.
6. Change in the terminology of “Straight Through Processing” to “Quick Transmission Processing”
6.1. In the above-mentioned Board Memorandum, it was proposed to use the term “Straight Through Processing (STP)” to denote low-value transmission cases of securities value up to Rs. 10,000 for physical securities and Rs. 30,000 for dematerialised securities.
6.2. As the term Straight Through Processing along with its acronym STP is generally used to indicate an automated end-to-end system based process without manual intervention, use of this term may lead to confusion among investors. Accordingly, in view of the fact that the proposed transmission process for low-value cases entails exercise of due-diligence and manual processing at the end of processing entities with minimal documentation, it is proposed to use the term “Quick Transmission Processing (QTP)” instead of “Straight Through Processing (STP)”.
7. Removal of the requirement of submission of Officially Valid ID proof (OVD) Since the proposed transmission framework entails submission of latest Client Master List (CML) of the demat account of the claimant, it is proposed to do away with the requirement of submission of OVD considering that OVD including PAN is already submitted for KYC purposes while opening demat account.
8. Clarity of issuing authority of Legal Heirship Certificate (LHC) or equivalent certificate
LHC or equivalent certificate is listed as one of the acceptable documents for claims above simplified documentation threshold. It is proposed to clarify that such LHC or equivalent certificate shall be issued by relevant authority which will mean a revenue authority not below the rank of a Tehsildar or equivalent authority.
9. Clarification on applicability of No Objection Certificate (NOC) from non-claimant legal heir(s)
It is proposed to clarify that in case the claimant submits any court issued documents viz., Succession Certificate or Probate of Will or Letter of Administration or Court Decree, the requirement of submission of NOC from non-claimant legal heir(s) will not be applicable.
10. Proposal for consideration and approval of the Board:
The Board is requested to:
a. consider and approve the proposals set out in Board Memorandum No. 39/2026 and its annexures subject to the relevant changes proposed above.
b. authorize the Chairperson to take necessary steps to implement the proposals including notification of amendments, issuing circulars, wherever necessary with consequential and appropriate changes, as may be required.
Annexure-A
(Available on SEBI Website www.sebi.gov.in under the head “Reports & Statistics”>>”Reports”>>”Reports for Public Comments”)
Annexure-B
(This has been excised for reasons of confidentiality.)
Annexure-C
(Amendments shall be notified after following the due process.)
Annexure-D
(Amendments shall be notified after following the due process.)
Annexure-E
(Operational framework shall be issued after following due process.)
