While the automated framework enhances enforcement efficiency, its blanket application to IRs, without refining definitional clarity and safeguarding individual autonomy risks regulatory overreach, compliance fatigue, and unjust restrictions on bona fide investors.

The SAT ruling in Kunal Kashyap v. SEBI sets a concerning precedent.

The proposed amendments to insider trading regulations, although well-intentioned, raise significant concerns.

SEBI’s proposed expansion of ‘connected persons’ represents a pivotal shift in insider trading regulations.

The author examines the SEBI (Prohibition of Insider Trading) (Third Amendment) Regulations 2024.

SEBI amendments are laudable but come with a drawback of over regulation and disturbance of efficient markets.

The expansion of UPSI, without clearly outlining the exceptions and information outside the UPSI ambit, creates regulatory imbalance.

The rationalization of the term ‘relative’ in PIT Regulations with the Income Tax Act 1961 aids in clarity.

By classifying unverified market information as UPSI via the amendment, the SEBI contradicts prior jurisprudence on the matter.

Changes basis American experience might be undesirable without going into the root cause of the unpopularity of TPs.

The dichotomy perpetuated by the courts has created a hard barrier for the SEBI Regulations 2015 to achieve their objective.

This post examines the inclusion of units of mutual funds in the PIT Regulations.