Role of SEBI in administrative adjudication
The Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) plays a quasi-judicial role in administrative adjudication concerning securities markets in India. Its primary aim is to protect investors, promote fair markets, and punish violations of securities laws through a robust adjudication mechanism.
🧭 What is Administrative Adjudication?
Administrative adjudication refers to the legal process by which an administrative agency (like SEBI) resolves disputes, imposes penalties, and enforces compliance without approaching a regular court of law.
📌 Role of SEBI in Administrative Adjudication
SEBI’s role is rooted in the SEBI Act, 1992 and regulations made thereunder.
1. Quasi-Judicial Authority
SEBI acts like a civil court for adjudicating disputes involving:
Insider trading
Market manipulation
Non-disclosure of information
Violation of listing agreements
Illegal collective investment schemes
2. Issuance of Show-Cause Notices
Before any penalty is imposed, SEBI issues a Show Cause Notice (SCN) to the alleged violator, explaining the charges and giving an opportunity to be heard.
3. Appointment of Adjudicating Officers (AOs)
Under Section 15-I of the SEBI Act, SEBI appoints Adjudicating Officers who conduct hearings, evaluate evidence, and pass orders.
4. Imposition of Penalties
Under Chapter VIA of the SEBI Act, SEBI can impose monetary penalties for various offenses such as:
Insider trading (Section 15G)
Failure to disclose acquisition (15A)
Fraudulent and unfair trade practices (15HA)
5. Appeal Mechanism
Orders of SEBI can be appealed before:
Securities Appellate Tribunal (SAT) under Section 15T
Supreme Court under Section 15Z (from SAT)
📚 Detailed Case Laws Explaining SEBI’s Role
1. SEBI v. Shri Ram Mutual Fund (2006) 68 SCL 216 (SC)
Facts:
Shri Ram Mutual Fund violated SEBI regulations by not complying with mutual fund advertisement guidelines.
SEBI imposed a penalty under Section 15D of the SEBI Act.
Issue:
Can SEBI impose a penalty even if the violation was not intentional?
Held:
The Supreme Court held that intent is irrelevant under SEBI's adjudicatory framework.
If there is a violation, SEBI must impose the penalty as per statutory mandate.
Significance:
Established strict liability in securities law violations.
Strengthened SEBI’s non-discretionary adjudicatory role.
2. Sahara India Real Estate Corp. Ltd. v. SEBI, (2013) 1 SCC 1
Facts:
Sahara raised over ₹24,000 crore from the public through Optionally Fully Convertible Debentures (OFCDs), bypassing SEBI’s regulatory framework.
Issue:
Could SEBI initiate adjudication against Sahara for an unlisted public issue?
Held:
The Supreme Court upheld SEBI’s jurisdiction over unlisted public companies that issue securities to more than 50 investors.
Directed Sahara to refund the money to investors with interest under SEBI’s supervision.
Significance:
Expanded SEBI’s regulatory and adjudicatory jurisdiction.
Reinforced SEBI’s role in investor protection and market integrity.
3. Price Waterhouse v. SEBI (SAT, 2010)
Facts:
Price Waterhouse was the auditor of Satyam Computers during the time of the ₹7,000 crore scam.
SEBI initiated adjudication against Price Waterhouse for failure to detect fraud.
Issue:
Can SEBI hold auditors accountable for negligence under securities laws?
Held:
SAT held that SEBI has jurisdiction to take action against intermediaries, including auditors, for professional misconduct if it affects investor interests.
Referred to the public duty of professionals in capital markets.
Significance:
Affirmed SEBI’s broad adjudicatory powers against third-party intermediaries, not just listed companies.
Recognized SEBI's authority to regulate market participants, including professionals.
4. Dilip Pendse v. SEBI (2009 SAT)
Facts:
Dilip Pendse, former MD of Tata Finance, was charged with insider trading—he traded based on unpublished price-sensitive information.
Issue:
Could SEBI penalize him through adjudication under insider trading regulations?
Held:
SEBI, through its Adjudicating Officer, imposed penalties under Regulation 3(i) of SEBI (Prohibition of Insider Trading) Regulations, 1992 and Section 15G of the SEBI Act.
SAT upheld SEBI’s decision.
Significance:
Landmark case where SEBI's adjudicatory powers were upheld in insider trading matters.
Emphasized the importance of confidentiality and fair access to information.
5. Karvy Stock Broking Ltd. v. SEBI (2020 SAT)
Facts:
Karvy misused clients’ securities to fund its own operations.
SEBI passed an interim order and initiated adjudication for violation of stockbroking norms.
Issue:
Did SEBI have the power to intervene and penalize a stockbroker for misuse of client funds?
Held:
SAT upheld SEBI’s adjudication proceedings and emphasized the fiduciary duty of brokers.
Allowed SEBI to impose penalties and bar the entity from market participation.
Significance:
Demonstrated SEBI's adjudicatory strength in handling intermediary misconduct.
Reinforced SEBI’s power to take swift preventive and penal actions.
🧾 Summary Table
| Case | Key Issue | SEBI’s Adjudicatory Power Upheld For |
|---|---|---|
| Shri Ram Mutual Fund | Penalty without intent | Strict liability |
| Sahara Case | Public issue without listing | Unlisted public company regulation |
| Price Waterhouse | Auditor liability | Accountability of professionals |
| Dilip Pendse | Insider trading | Confidentiality and transparency |
| Karvy Stock Broking | Misuse of client funds | Intermediary regulation and penalties |
🧭 Conclusion
SEBI’s role in administrative adjudication is multi-dimensional:
It acts as a regulator, investigator, prosecutor, and quasi-judicial authority.
Through its adjudicatory mechanism, it ensures:
Market discipline
Investor protection
Fairness and transparency
The case laws clearly demonstrate SEBI’s power to enforce the law, penalize defaulters, and ensure integrity in Indian capital markets.
RELATED Blog
0 comments