The article explores the challenges and shortcomings of SEBI’s proposed AI/ML liability framework, particularly its reliance on senior management accountability, while suggesting alternative governance models informed by global best practices, and aims to contribute to the ongoing discourse on corporate and commercial law and aims to contribute to the ongoing discourse on corporate and commercial law.

SEBI, in February 2025, released the regulation for the process of regulation-making to increase transparency and, inter alia, mandated stakeholder consultation and a statement of the regulatory intent and objectives of the proposed regulations. However, as noted, merely articulating the objective without committed engagement with the underlying rationale and the chosen intervention can result in the objective being realized in foreseeably unintended ways.

SEBI’s circular is a good step towards regulating ERPs. However, there is still not enough clarity on what exactly the ratings are trying to achieve.

Owing to the abysmal usage of the IPEF and issues surrounding it, a strong compensation mechanism is required to be set up, either giving express power to SEBI to direct compensation or creating a fund specifically for compensating affected investors due to the violation of any securities law.

HFT's contribution to improving market efficiency and liquidity in India is evident. By consistently placing sizable volumes of buy and sell orders, narrowing bid-ask spreads, and guaranteeing more seamless trade execution, high-frequency trading increases liquidity and enhances market efficiency.

Legal teams and corporate secretaries should therefore start reviewing RPT policies now, for instance, updating internal RPT registers, arm’s-length procedures, and disclosure checklists to reflect the new regime.

SEBI’s 2025 proposals represent a significant evolution, combining empirical data, comparative insight, and statutory modernization. If adopted, these changes would foster a deeper, more diversified pool of anchor investors, strengthen the role of long-term institutions, and produce a more realistic structure for public allocation in large IPOs.

The amendment recognizes the contributions of founders and aims to make it easier for startups to go public. However, it does not fully address the governance risks that arise when control and financial benefits overlap.

While the Consultation Paper is a progressive step towards enhancing operational flexibility for AMCs, the proposed framework requires stronger safeguards to prevent regulatory arbitrage and protect retail investors.

Asian Paints should not be the beginning of corporate criminal empire-building—it should be a prompt for cautious, principled, and restrained evolution.

The Jane Street saga highlights the urgent and immediate need for SEBI to undertake a transition from a model that relies on reactive enforcement to a modernistic, proactive, and integrated oversight model.

The significant influence of hedge fund activists in the M&A regime have significantly altered the corporate governance in India. While they provide mechanism for key deals to go through, they are also able to suppress minority voices in a company which can take the form of their parochial focus on short-term profit maximization.

Although India has a robust legal framework to penalize front-running, such incidents remain routine. This persistence stems not just from legislative shortfalls but also from technological, structural, and institutional enforcement deficits.

The intersection of corporate governance and AI-related intellectual property presents a complex yet evolving opportunity which demands adaptive governance frameworks.

While res judicata has been firmly applied to SEBI’s quasi-judicial functions, its administrative actions remain largely untouched by the principle.

The country’s policies for financial liberalization are not based entirely on ideology anymore; they depend on the situation and are carefully planned. How the RBI allows foreign banks to be involved evidences the growth and maturity of the financial system. It is putting in place a filter to invite foreign money if it follows the country’s financial rules, encourages more trust in national politics, and matches what the nation aims to achieve.

MeitY’s CMS serves as an accelerator in India’s journey towards informed consent in clickwrap agreements. By introducing features like purpose-specific consent, user friendly interface, consent artifacts, immutable audit trails, the CMS seeks to ensure that users are able to make the right choice while granting their consent to data processing.

As foreign jurisdictions adopt flexible CI frameworks, India must also reform its approach to overcome its competitive disadvantage. Thus, timely corrections will be key to unlocking the full potential of the Indian CI ecosystem.

The fragmented jurisprudence following the Shriram case, where tribunals stepped in to harmonize overlapping statutes, underscores the urgent need for regulatory clarity. Given the legislative silence on cross-sector mergers and the potential risks identified by IRDAI, a forward-looking solution should be regulatory.

SEBI’s approval of the CIV scheme as a model for co-investing in AIFs is a significant step towards modernizing the private capital market of India and aligning it with global standards. Streamlining co-investment processes, it provides much-needed flexibility and enhances the ease of doing business.

As India is witnessing the rapid expansion of digital lending in its financial sector, it becomes increasingly important to redefine its regulatory framework accordingly. While the use of AI models and ML in credit risk assessment helps in improving the overall efficiency and scalability, the challenges like AI-bias, data protection, and lack of transparency call for prompt intervention.

The Draft Directions mark a welcome evolution from the prohibitive regime of 2023. By introducing proportionality, excluding hybrid instruments and exempts REs from compliance requirements where their exposure to an AIF scheme is limited to 5%, RBI has made significant attempt to balance systemic concerns with market growth.

This article critically analyzes the legal obligations of independent directors in India, compares them to the situation on ground, and investigates whether recent reforms have gone far enough in transforming these “toothless tigers” into actual guardians of the public interest and shareholders. The article also gives recommendations which, if incorporated, might help empower independent directors to effectively oversee corporations.

For the investors, the message is clear: you cannot necessarily compete on speed, but you can compete on depth by paying attention to fundamentals, checking public filings, and being sensitive to nuanced changes in company disclosures. As India's capital markets develop, it is the responsibility of both regulators and market players to maintain the faith that is the bedrock of every transaction.