SEBI Settlement Regulations upheld against constitutional challenge, petitioners' delay tactics through settlement applications rejected

The Bombay HC dismissed petitioners' challenge to SEBI Settlement Proceedings Regulations, 2018, rejecting claims of excessive delegation and manifest arbitrariness. The court found petitioners attempted to stall SCN adjudication through settlement applications while refusing cooperation and making contradictory requests. SEBI's rejection of settlement proposals with conditions requiring other noticees' participation was deemed reasonable given allegations of acting in concert. The court held settlement regulations conform to constitutional requirements and SEBI Act provisions, with adequate determining principles. Petitioners' conduct paralleled tactics in Binny Limited case, using settlement applications to delay proceedings under Regulation 8's abeyance provision.

---

---

Issues Involved:

1. Validity of Regulations 6(1)(f) and 13(2)(ba) of the SEBI (Settlement Proceedings) Regulations, 2018.
2. Challenge to the rejection of the petitioners' settlement proposal by SEBI.
3. Allegations of excessive delegation and manifest arbitrariness in the SEBI Settlement Regulations.
4. Petitioners' rights concerning settlement proposals and SEBI's discretion in accepting or rejecting them.
5. The role and authority of the Internal Committee (IC) and Whole Time Members (WTM) in settlement proceedings.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of Regulations 6(1)(f) and 13(2)(ba):

The petitioners challenged these regulations, arguing they were ultra vires the SEBI Act and manifestly arbitrary. The court examined the statutory framework under which SEBI operates, emphasizing that SEBI is empowered to make regulations for settlement proceedings, including imposing conditions precedent. The court found no excessive delegation, as the SEBI Act provides sufficient guidance for SEBI to frame such regulations. The court held that the regulations were within SEBI's delegated authority and aligned with the legislative intent to regulate securities markets effectively.

2. Rejection of the Settlement Proposal:

The petitioners' settlement applications were rejected by SEBI, which they contested as arbitrary. The court noted that SEBI's rejection was based on due consideration by the High-Powered Advisory Committee (HPAC) and the panel of WTMs. The court emphasized that petitioners do not have an absolute right to have their settlement proposals accepted on their terms. The rejection was found to be within SEBI's discretion, exercised reasonably and in alignment with public interest considerations.

3. Allegations of Excessive Delegation and Manifest Arbitrariness:

The petitioners argued that the regulations allowed the IC excessive discretion, leading to arbitrary outcomes. The court rejected this, stating that the SEBI Act and Settlement Regulations provide ample guidance on exercising discretion. The court referred to precedents emphasizing that economic regulations require flexibility and expert discretion. The court found no merit in the claim of excessive delegation or manifest arbitrariness, as the regulations were consistent with the parent statute and did not lack logical consistency.

4. Petitioners' Rights and SEBI's Discretion:

The court clarified that while petitioners have the right to a fair consideration of their settlement applications, they cannot dictate the terms of settlement. SEBI's role as a regulator involves balancing public interest with the parties' interests, and it is not obligated to accept settlement proposals that compromise regulatory objectives. The court reiterated that SEBI's discretion in settlement matters is guided by public interest and regulatory compliance.

5. Role and Authority of IC and WTMs:

The petitioners contended that the IC's imposition of conditions precedent prevented their proposals from reaching the WTMs. The court found that the IC's role in suggesting conditions is part of the settlement process to ensure seriousness and protect public interest. The court noted that the IC's recommendations are subject to review by the HPAC and WTMs, ensuring a comprehensive evaluation process. The court upheld the structured approach in the regulations, allowing SEBI to manage settlement proceedings effectively.

Conclusion:

The court dismissed the petition, affirming the validity of the challenged regulations and SEBI's rejection of the settlement proposal. The court emphasized the importance of SEBI's discretion in regulatory matters and the need for flexibility in economic regulations. The judgment underscored the balance between individual rights and public interest in the context of securities market regulation.

---