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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

Corporate strategy, financial intelligence, and regulatory discipline interact cautiously in the CCD ecosystem. Companies must view CCD transactions as long-term commitments to governance, transparency, and shareholder fairness rather than just as capital-raising activities.

Prior to the amendment of the Act, hostile takeovers and other time sensitive acquisitions were difficult to implement due to the existence of a standstill obligation. The insertion of Section 6A is a step towards facilitating hostile takeovers in the future.

The SEBI-recommended CIV framework is a positive measure towards simplifying the co-investment regime by eradicating duplicative compliance requirements and allowing quicker execution. Nevertheless, its limited scope, restricting participation to existing AIF investors and accredited investors, may counteract the universal objective of democratizing access to private equity opportunities.

Considering the fact that before these guidelines, the entire algo trading market for retail investors thrived in an unregulated sphere, one must appreciate this circular for its timely intervention in this sector.

The authors discuss how the CoI Code falls short of aptly regulating the potential instances of conflict of interest, especially in light of the tech related advancements that have taken place over time.

While the 2025 amendment reflects a commendable effort to bring definitional certainty to the insider training framework, its efficiency hinges on whether SEBI can balance clarity and adaptability.

SEBI’s 2025 consultation paper mark a progressive step toward enhancing the ease of doing business, operational clarity, transparency and investor inclusiveness in the REIT and InvIT frameworks.

Successful implementation of ESG reforms can only take place if there is collaboration among regulators, rating agencies, corporates, and investors.

The author believes that any attempt to characterize the units as equity rather than hybrid would affect the very artificial juridical character of these investment trusts as trusts.

It is a need of an hour for India to tailor certain reforms, like easing lending restrictions for IBC-approved assets, permitting controlled use of target collateral, creating special IPO windows, and expanding high-yield debt options, would allow the Indian market to benefit from LBOs, alongside also being cautious. 

As the regulatory perimeter expands and matures, the distinction between corporate issuers and trust-based entities will continue to blur—at least in terms of compliance expectations.

SEBI’s delegation of penalty-levying powers to RSEs lacks explicit statutory backing under the SEBI Act and SCRA.

SEBI has shown a number of apprehensions regarding retail investors getting involved in algo trading, citing possible manipulation of the market, unfair access to market information, and excessive volatility.

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.

While SEBI’s reforms mark a significant advance, their true impact will depend on whether they lead to substantive improvements in governance or result in mere procedural compliance.

SIFs may bring advanced investment techniques to India's expanding HNI base and establish a model for emerging markets. However, neglecting world lessons or discounting major threats may repeat the mistakes of the past.

The authors advocate for inclusion of REITs and involvement of appropriate regulatory bodies to govern lending of RWAs through blockchain routes.