๐๐ก๐ ๐๐๐’๐ฌ ๐๐ฅ๐ข๐ง๐ ๐๐ฉ๐จ๐ญ
We are pleased to share this thought-provoking article written by Dr. M. S. Sahoo and our Founder & Managing Partner, Mr. Sumit Agrawal, published in The Financial Express.
As India’s securities law framework moves towards consolidation through the proposed Securities Market Code, questions relating to territorial jurisdiction, regulatory reach and cross-border market conduct assume increasing significance. The article examines why an effects-based jurisdictional framework may be essential for a modern securities law regime.
M. S. Sahoo
Sumit Agrawal
Regstreet Law Advisors
๐๐ก๐ ๐๐๐โ๐ฌ ๐๐ฅ๐ข๐ง๐ ๐๐ฉ๐จ๐ญ: ๐๐จ๐ฐ ๐๐๐ซ ๐ฌ๐ก๐จ๐ฎ๐ฅ๐ ๐๐ง๐๐ข๐โ๐ฌ ๐ฌ๐๐๐ฎ๐ซ๐ข๐ญ๐ข๐๐ฌ ๐ฅ๐๐ฐ ๐ซ๐๐๐๐ก?
Delighted to share my article in The Financial Express, co-authored with Dr. M. S. Sahoo available at : https://lnkd.in/gfWCJrxH
The proposed Securities Market Code is a landmark consolidation of Indiaโs securities laws. It seeks to bring coherence to a framework currently spread across the SEBI Act, SCRA and Depositories Act. But one foundational issue deserves closer attention: territorial jurisdiction.
Markets do not stop at national borders. Securities, capital, information, trading strategies, algorithms, offshore structures and market conduct often move seamlessly across jurisdictions. Conduct undertaken outside India can still affect Indian securities markets in a direct and material way.
Our argument is that the SMC should say this expressly.
India should adopt an effects-based jurisdictional framework, bringing within the Code conduct outside India that has a direct, substantial or reasonably foreseeable impact on Indian securities markets.
This is not regulatory overreach. It is a calibrated response to the realities of global markets – supported by constitutional doctrine, Indian precedent, comparative securities law and international cooperation frameworks.
A modern securities code should not leave the reach of the law to implication, reconstruction or litigation.
In global markets, silence on jurisdiction is not neutrality. It is a regulatory blind spot.
