Mumbai: In a uncommon present of self-reflection, India’s high market regulator acknowledged that its personal investigations had at instances brought on undue hardship for the corporations it oversees.
A latest regulatory motion towards funding adviser Alliance Analysis has uncovered procedural complexities within the Securities and Change Board of India’s (Sebi) enforcement course of, elevating questions on equity and inside coordination.
In October, a Sebi quasi-judicial authority Santosh Shukla described the case as “peculiar and distinctive,” noting that the initiation of three separate proceedings towards Alliance created an inside “impasse.” The regulator itself flagged lapses in its investigative course of, together with what it referred to as a “non-application of thoughts” in a single occasion.
The motion towards Alliance Analysis and its proprietor, Mudassir Hasan, stemmed from a Sebi inspection overlaying April 2018 to February 2020. It led to an interim debarment in January 2021, later confirmed in July 2022. Allegations included unregistered advisory actions, failure to redress investor grievances, and staff not assembly eligibility standards.
Fairly than issuing a single remaining order, Sebi pursued three separate tracks, creating confusion inside departments on “methods to conclude the proceedings.” This impasse was resolved in March 2025, with a call to deal with every monitor independently.
Sebi’s self-check
The quasi-judicial orders issued in October addressed each procedural and substantive points.
The 7 October order imposed a two-month suspension on the adviser, already debarred, whereas the ten October order levied a ₹6 lakh penalty for different violations, together with working with out registration, failing to tell Sebi of an handle change, and using a barred particular person. Each orders dismissed prices associated to investor grievance delays.
Authorized consultants see the orders as a possible benchmark for future enforcement. “Operating a number of proceedings on the identical details basically contradicts the rules of pure justice,” stated Sonam Chandwani, managing accomplice at KS Authorized & Associates. “It not solely creates regulatory overreach but in addition displays a scarcity of inside coordination.”
The investigation itself drew scrutiny. One delayed investor criticism was cited as a violation, regardless that the identical shopper had filed two an identical complaints on the identical day, and one was resolved. The authority noticed: “I’m of the agency view that such non utility of thoughts causes irreparable harassment by making allegations and issuing repeated SCNs (show-cause notices).”
Rohit Jain, managing accomplice at Singhania & Co., stated the order may affect future circumstances. “This order may set a precedent… encouraging adjudicating officers and WTMs (whole-time members) to take a extra important view of investigation stories and never simply settle for them at face worth.”
Sebi’s personal procedural delays have been additionally highlighted. In some circumstances, investor complaints took as much as 195 days to be forwarded to Alliance Analysis, undermining well timed decision and elevating questions on equity.
Tushar Kumar, advocate on the Supreme Courtroom of India, described the method as constructive. “The language of empathy on this order displays that evolution,” he stated. “It exhibits that Sebi’s quasi-judicial method is just not solely about punishment but in addition about guaranteeing that enforcement stays simply and balanced.”
Chandwani added that phrases like “irreparable harassment” sign a “maturing method the place Sebi’s adjudicators are prepared to weigh equity alongside deterrence”.
