r1//./r2Capital Market06Dispute Resolution11Fintech20International Trade/ WTO27Ministry of Corporate Affairs (MCA)34Restructuring and Insolvency45Sports and Gaming49White Collar Crime03Competition Law08Employment Law15Infrastructure and Energy24Media and entertainment31RBI & FEMA40RERA47Technology51r3MASTER CIRCULAR FOR ISSUE OF CAPITAL ANDDISCLOSURE REQUIREMENTSThe Securities and Exchange Board of India (“SEBI”) hasissued an updated Master Circular1for Issue of Capital andDisclosure Requirements (“SEBI ICDR Master Circular”),consolidating all extant circulars and directions issued underthe Securities and Exchange Board of India (Issue of Capitaland Disclosure Requirements) Regulations, 2018 (“SEBI ICDRRegulations”). Originally issued on June 21, 2023 andsubsequently updated on November 11, 2024, the SEBI ICDRMaster Circular has now been further revised to incorporateall relevant circulars issued up to December 31, 2025, withnecessary modifications to align the consolidated frameworkwith provisions currently in force. The objective is to providestakeholders with a single, comprehensive referencedocument for compliance under the SEBI ICDR Regulations.Consequent to this issuance, all circulars listed in theappendix of the SEBI ICDR Master Circular stand rescinded tothe extent they relate to the SEBI ICDR Regulations;however, such rescission is expressly subject to robust savingprovisions. Actions taken, applications filed, rights accrued,liabilities incurred, penalties imposed, and investigations orlegal proceedings initiated under the rescinded circularsremain valid and unaffected, and shall be deemed to havebeen undertaken under the corresponding provisions of thepresent SEBI ICDR Master Circular. The update thus ensuresregulatory consolidation and clarity while preserving legalcontinuity and safeguarding investor interests.The additional circulars rescinded by the SEBI ICDR MasterCircular are as followsSr.No.Date ofCircular Circular No. Subject/Title1.May 16,2011CIR/CFD/DIL/2/2011 Adjustmentof1 HO/49/14/14(2)2026-CFD-POD2/I/4518/2026 dated February 09, 2026differentialpricingamount atthe time ofapplicationfor allotmentof specifiedsecurities2.June 03,2011CIR/CFD/DIL/3/2011Redemptionof IndianDepositoryReceipts(IDRs) intoUnderlyingEquityShares3.August 28,2012CIR/CFD/DIL/10/2012Redemptionof IndianDepositoryReceipts(IDRs) intoUnderlyingEquityShares4.March 01,2013CIR/CFD/DIL/6/2013Guidelinesfor enablingPartial TwoWayFungibility ofIndianDepositoryReceipts(IDRs)5.September 16, 2024CIR/CFD/PoD/2024/122Enabling T+2trading ofBonus shareswhere T isthe recorddater46.November21, 2024SEBI circular no.SEBI/HO/CFD/CFDPoD2/P/CIR/2024/0161dated November21,2024Withdrawalof MasterCircular onissuance ofNo ObjectionCertificate(NOC) forrelease of 1%of IssueAmount7.February28, 2025SEBI/HO/CFD/CFDPoD-2/P/CIR/2025/2Industrystandards onKeyPerformanceIndicators(“KPIs”)Disclosuresin the draftOfferDocumentand OfferDocument8.March 11,2025SEBI/HO/CFD/CFDPoD-1/P/CIR/2025/31Faster RightsIssue with aflexibility ofallotment tospecificinvestor9.November11, 2024SEBI/HO/CFD/PoD1/P/CIR/2024/0154MasterCircular forIssue ofCapital andDisclosureRequirementsMASTER CIRCULAR FOR REGISTRARS TO AN ISSUE ANDSHARE TRANSFER AGENTSThe Securities and Exchange Board of India (“SEBI”) hasissued an updated Master Circular2for Registrars to an Issueand Share Transfer Agents (“SEBI RTA Master Circular”),consolidating all applicable circulars governing Registrars toan Issue and Share Transfer Agents (“RTA”), with theobjective of ensuring effective regulation and providingstakeholders with a single, comprehensive referencecircular.Upon its issuance, all earlier circulars specified in theappendix stand rescinded to the extent they pertain to RTAs.However, the rescission is expressly subject to savingprovisions: actions taken, applications filed and pending,rights accrued, liabilities incurred, penalties imposed, andinvestigations or legal proceedings initiated under the2 HO/38/13/(4)2026-MIRSD-POD/I/4298/2026 dated February 06, 2026rescinded circulars shall remain valid and enforceable asthough such circulars had continued in force.The additional circulars rescinded by the SEBI RTA MasterCircular are as follows-• May 23, 2025 -SEBI/HO/MIRSD/SECFATF/P/CIR/2025/74 -Accessibility and Inclusiveness of Digital KYC to Personswith Disabilities• September 19, 2025 - SEBI/HO/MIRSD/MIRSDPoD/P/CIR/2025/130 - Ease of Doing Investment -Smooth transmission of securities from Nominee toLegal Heir• December 24, 2025 - HO/38/13/11(3)2025-MIRSDPOD/l/1102/2025 - Ease of Doing Investment- Reviewof simplification of procedure and standardization offormats of documents for issuance of duplicatecertificates.• January 30, 2026 - HO/38/13/(3)2026-MIRSDPOD/l/3763/2026 - Ease of Doing Investment and Easeof Doing Business- Doing away with requirement ofissuance of Letter of Confirmation (“LOC”) and to effectdirect credit of securities in dematerialisation account ofthe investor.• January 30, 2026 - HO/38/13/11(2)2026-MIRSDPOD/l/3750/2026 - Ease of Doing Investment- SpecialWindow for Transfer and Dematerialisation of PhysicalSecuritiesCIRCULAR ON CREATION/INVOCATION OF PLEDGE OFSECURITIES THROUGH DEPOSITORY SYSTEMThe Securities and Exchange Board of India (“SEBI”), vide itscircular3 has amended the framework governing the creationand invocation of pledge of securities through the depositorysystem. The circular modifies paragraph 4.13 of the SEBIMaster Circular for Depositories dated December 3, 2024,read with Regulation 79 of the Securities and ExchangeBoard of India (Depositories and Participants) Regulations,2018, to align the pledge mechanism with Sections 176 and177 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. These provisionsrequire the pledgee (pawnee) to provide reasonable noticeto the pledger (pawnor) prior to sale of pledged securities.Accordingly, depositories are now required to incorporateundertakings in their standardized pledge request forms,wherein the pledgee confirms compliance with the notice3 HO/47/14/12(1)2026-MRD-POD2/I/4229/2026 dated February 05, 2026r5requirement and both parties undertake to adhere toapplicable legal and regulatory provisions. Further, uponinvocation of a pledge, depositories must notify both partiesand record the pledgee as the beneficial owner inaccordance with the regulations. The depositories have beendirected to amend their bye-laws, implement necessarysystem changes, and disseminate the circular to participants.The provisions of this circular shall be implemented on orbefore April 6, 2026.r6COMPETITION COMMISSION OF INDIA APPROVESTORRENT PHARMACEUTICALS’ ACQUISITION OF J.B.CHEMICALS SUBJECT TO VOLUNTARY MODIFICATIONSOn 21 October 2025, the Competition Commission of India(“CCI” or “Commission”) approved the proposed acquisitionby Torrent Pharmaceuticals Limited (“Torrent”) of a majoritystake in J.B. Chemicals & Pharmaceuticals Limited (“JBChemicals”) under Section 31(1) of the Competition Act,2002, subject to modifications. The proposed combinationcomprised (i) acquisition of 46.39% shareholding from TauInvestment Holdings Pte. Ltd.; (ii) acquisition of 2.41%shareholding from certain employees; (iii) a mandatory openoffer for up to 26% under the SEBI (SAST) Regulations; and(iv) a subsequent amalgamation of JB Chemicals into Torrentpursuant to a scheme under the Companies Act, 2013.Upon review, the Commission issued a show cause noticeunder Section 29(1) of the Competition Act, 2002(“Competition Act”), forming a prima facie view that thetransaction was likely to cause an appreciable adverse effecton competition (“AAEC”) in certain markets for finisheddosage formulations (“FDFs”). CCI’s assessment, conductedat ATC3/ATC4 therapeutic groups and molecule levels,narrowed concerns to three FDF segments: LactobacillusAcidophilus, Nifedipine, and Azelnidipine.In three of the markets, namely, Lactobacillus Nifedipine,and Azelnidipine, the Commission noted that the combinedmarket share of the parties is in the range of 95%-100% andthe same will constraint the market and likely causeappreciable effect on competition. Thereby, to address theseconcerns, Torrent proposed several modifications, including,(i) licensing the Vizylac brand (single-strain LactobacillusAcidophilus) to an independent entity for five years; (ii)divestment of all Nifedipine products marketed under theCalcigard brand; and (iii) a commitment to continuemarketing JB’s Azovas (Azelnidipine) brand with a price capof 5% per annum for three years.The CCI having satisfied that the modification suggested islikely to address the harm to the competition, conditionallyapproved the transaction.CCI APPROVES CAPGEMINI’S ACQUISITION OF CLOUD4COn 14 October 2025, the CCI approved the proposedacquisition by Capgemini SE (“Capgemini” or the “Acquirer”)of 100% shareholding in Cloud4C Services Pte. Ltd. andCloud4C Services Private Limited (collectively, “Cloud4C” orthe “Targets”) under Section 31(1) of the Competition Act.The transaction was notified pursuant to a share purchaseagreement executed between entities controlled by Mr. P.Sridhar Reddy and Capgemini. Capgemini is a globalconsulting, engineering, and IT services companyheadquartered in France, with operations in India through itssubsidiaries. Cloud4C is an Indian hybrid cloud managedservices provider. The Commission observed that the partiesexhibited horizontal overlaps at a broad level in the marketfor IT / IT-enabled services (“IT/ITeS”) in India, and atnarrower levels in (i) IT consulting services; (ii) applicationimplementation and managed services; (iii) infrastructureimplementation and managed services; (iv) cloud services;(v) IT security solution services; and (vi) data analyticsservices. The CCI also examined the sub-segment of hybridcloud management services in India.Upon review, no vertical or complementary relationshipswere identified between the parties in India. The CCI left theprecise delineation of the relevant market open, noting thatthe combined market shares of the parties in each of theidentified markets and sub-segments were minuscule [0%-5%], with the presence of several other establishedcompetitors. Based on its assessment, CCI concluded thatthe proposed transaction is not likely to cause an AAEC inIndia and accordingly granted its approval.r7CCI APPROVES SMBC’S ACQUISITION OF 20% STAKE IN YESBANKOn 2 September 2025, the CCI approved the proposedacquisition by Sumitomo Mitsui Banking Corporation(“SMBC” or the “Acquirer”) of 20% of the share capital andvoting rights of YES Bank Limited (“YES Bank” or the“Target”) under Section 31(1) of the Competition Act, 2002.The transaction was notified pursuant to share purchaseagreements dated 9 May 2025, executed with State Bank ofIndia and certain other shareholder banks, including HDFCBank Limited, ICICI Bank Limited, Kotak Mahindra BankLimited, Axis Bank Limited, Bandhan Bank Limited, IDFC FirstBank Limited and Federal Bank Limited. The proposedtransaction envisages the acquisition of 20% of YES Bank’sshare capital, subject to approvals of the CCI and the ReserveBank of India. SMBC also indicated a potential futureincrease in shareholding up to 24.99%; however, as bindingdocuments had not yet been executed in respect of suchadditional acquisition, the Commission assessed only theinitial 20% acquisition. SMBC is a Japan-based commercialbank and a wholly owned subsidiary of Sumitomo MitsuiFinancial Group (“SMFG”), which operates in India throughbranches of SMBC and its subsidiary SMFG India Credit Co.Ltd. YES Bank is a listed Indian private sector bank engagedin a wide range of retail, MSME and corporate banking andfinancial services. CCI observed horizontal overlaps betweenthe parties in several segments, including provision of loansand lending services, loans against securities, digitalpayment services, deposit-taking services, foreign exchangeservices, investment banking services, cash managementservices, and distribution of insurance in India. Verticallinkages were also identified in relation to arranger servicesin debt private placement, vehicle loans and leasing services,and alternative investment funds and related referralservices.The Commission noted that the incremental market sharefrom the transaction were in the range of across all plausiblemarkets, except in the narrower segments of provision ofNEFT services and unsecured loans to individuals, where thecombined share was in the range of [5%-10%]. TheCommission also observed the presence of severalsignificant competitors across the identified markets. In viewof the limited incremental change and the competitivelandscape, the Commission concluded that the proposedtransaction is not likely to cause an appreciable adverseeffect on competition in India. Accordingly, the ProposedCombination was approved under Section 31(1) of theCompetition Act.CCI ORDERS INVESTIGATION AGAINST INDIGO FORALLEGED ABUSE OF DOMINANCE IN THE DOMESTICAVIATION MARKETOn 4 February 2026, CCI passed an order under Section 26(1) of the Competition Act, directing the Director General(“DG”) to investigate InterGlobe Aviation Limited (“IndiGo”)for alleged abuse of dominant position in the domestic airpassenger transport market. The Information was filed by anindividual passenger alleging that IndiGo cancelled flights ona large scale between 3-5 December 2025 and subsequentlycharged significantly higher fares on affected routes. TheInformant claimed that his return flight was cancelled shortlybefore departure without alternative arrangements, andthat he was compelled to rebook at a substantially higherfare. At the outset, IndiGo challenged the CCI's jurisdiction,contending that the matter fell exclusively within theregulatory domain of the Directorate General of CivilAviation (“DGCA”) under the Bhartiya Vayuyan Adhiniyam,2024 and the Aircraft Rules, 1937. The Commission rejectedthis objection, holding that sectoral regulation andcompetition law operate in distinct and complementaryspheres. Relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in BhartiAirtel Limited v. CCI, the CCI clarified that the existence ofsector-specific remedies does not oust the CCI’s jurisdictionto examine anti-competitive conduct under Sections 3 and 4of the Competition Act.For assessment, the Commission delineated the relevantmarket as the “market for domestic air passenger transportservices in India.” The Commission noted that the allegedconduct involved system-wide flight disruptions affectingmultiple routes simultaneously, thereby warranting a panIndia market definition rather than a route-specificapproach. Based on data provided by the DGCA, theCommission noted that IndiGo consistently accounted forapproximately 60-63% of domestic passenger market shareand available seat kilometre capacity during FY 2023-24 andFY 2024-25. CCI also observed that IndiGo operatedexclusively on over 330 city-pair routes and maintained thelargest fleet in India, alongside sustained profitability inrecent financial years. These factors led the Commission toform a prima facie view that IndiGo holds a dominantposition in the relevant market.On the issue of abuse, CCI observed that the large-scalecancellation of flights, reportedly affecting over three lakhpassengers, coupled with subsequent fare escalation, mayamount to imposition of unfair prices under Section 4(2)(a)(i)and restriction of services under Section 4(2)(b)(i) of theCompetition Act. It noted that the sudden withdrawal ofcapacity by a dominant enterprise could create artificialscarcity and leave consumers with limited alternatives.Accordingly, finding a prima facie case of contravention ofSection 4 of the Competition Act, the Commission directedthe DG to conduct an investigation and submit a reportwithin 90 days.r8C. VELUSAMY VS K INDHERA [AWARD PASSED AFTERARBITRATORS MANDATE EXPIRY NOT VOID IF COURTEXTENDS TIME]A Division Bench of the Supreme Court of India comprisingof Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Atul S.Chandurkar, in the matter titled C. Velusamy vs K Indhera4,held that an arbitral award rendered beyond the statutoryperiod prescribed under Section 29A of the Arbitration andConciliation Act, 1996 (“Act”), such an award, thoughrendered after the tribunal’s mandate has technicallyterminated, can be given effect if an application is filedbefore the competent court under Section 29A of the Actseeking extension of the arbitral tribunal’s mandate.Brief Facts of the CaseIn a dispute arising from three agreements to sell, theMadras High Court appointed a sole arbitrator on19.04.2022, who issued notice on 04.05.2022 and setpleadings completion for 20.08.2022, triggering the 12-month mandate under Section 29A(1) of the Act; parties preemptively extended it by 6 months via joint memo underSection 29A(3), expiring on 20.02.2024. Despite reservingthe award on 09.09.2023 amid settlement talks (adjournedto 07.01.2024, 27.01.2024, and 27.04.2024), the arbitratorpassed the award on 11.05.2024 (stamped/issued25.06.2024 post-mandate expiry). Respondent challengedthe award under Section 34 of the Act on the ground of theaward being a nullity due to lapsed mandate of the Tribunal.On the other hand, the Appellant sought retrospectiveextension of the Tribunal’s mandate in terms of Section 29Aof the Act on 12.11.2024. However, the High Court dismissedthe extension application on 24.01.2025, observing the sameto be maintainable only at a pre-award stage, thereby alsorejecting reliance placed by the Appellant on the judgmentsof “Rohan Builders (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Berger Paints India Ltd5”4 SLP(C) No. 6551 of 20255 2024 SCC OnLine SC 24946 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3381(permitting post-expiry extensions); and “Ajay Protech Pvt.Ltd. v. General Manager”6. However, the Madras High Courtallowed the petition under Section 34 of the Act. The MadrasHigh Court while rejecting the Application under Section 29Aof the Act placed reliance on its prior orders in the matter of“Suryadev Alloys & Power Pvt. Ltd. v. Shri GovindarajaTextiles Pvt. Ltd7, Ayyasamy v. A. Shanmugavel8 and thejudgment of Kerala High Court in the matter of “RKECProjects Ltd. v. Cochin Port Trust”9.Submissions AdvancedIn the appeal before the Supreme Court, the Appellantplaced reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in thematter of “Rohan Builders (India) Pvt. Ltd. vs Berger PaintsIndia Ltd” (“Rohan Builder Judgment”), and contended thatan application under Section 29A of the Act is maintainableeven after the expiry of the initial 12-month period plus theconsensual 6-month extension. It was also contended thatthe Court’s power under Section 29A (4) and 29A(5) of theAct, to extend the mandate of the Arbitral Tribunal, can beexercised either before or after such expiry, so that the merefact that an award has in the meantime been rendered lateshould not defeat the Court’s jurisdiction to regularise themandate and thereby preserve the arbitral process. TheRespondent on the other hand distinguished the RohanBuilders Judgment on the footing that the said judgment didnot involve a situation where an award had already beenpassed after expiry of mandate. The Respondent also reliedon the Madras High Court decision in Suryadev Alloys &Power Pvt. Ltd., and similar authority to argue that, unlikethe 1940 Act, the 1996 Act contains no provision permittingpost-award enlargement of time, and that an award passedafter expiry of the arbitrator’s mandate is a nullity. It was alsocontended that no application under Section 29A of the 1996Act is maintainable once such an award has been delivered.7 2020 SCC OnLine Mad 78588 2024 SCC OnLine Mad 43389 2024 SCC OnLine Ker 41929The Supreme Court’s DecisionThe Court while allowing the appeal held that an awardpassed after expiry of the mandate is ineffective andunenforceable, but not a nullity that automatically deprivesthe court of jurisdiction to revive the mandate of theTribunal. It was further clarified that such an award does notrequire to be set aside under Section 34 of the Act if themandate of the Tribunal is subsequently extended. Inconclusion, the Court observed inter alia:• An application under Section 29A (5) of the Act forextension of the mandate of the arbitrator ismaintainable even after the expiry of the time underSections 29A (1) and (3) of the Act and even afterrendering of an award during that time. Such an awardis ineffective and unenforceable. But the power of thecourt to consider extension is not impaired by such anindiscretion of the arbitrator; and• If the mandate is extended, the arbitral tribunal will pickup the thread from where it was left and seamlesslycontinue the proceeding from the stage at which themandate had expired and conclude within the timegranted.M/S SAISUDHIR ENERGY LTD. VS M/S NTPC VIDYUTVYAPAR NIGAM LTD. & M/S NTPC VIDYUT VYAPAR NIGAMLTD. V. M/S SAISUDHIR ENERGY LTD [COURT UNDERSECTION 37 OF THE ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT,1996 (“ACT”) CANNOT MODIFY THE AMOUNT OFCOMPENSATION AWARDED BY THE COURT UNDERSECTION 34 OF THE ACT WITHOUT FINDINGS OFARBITRARINESS OR PERVERSITY]A Division Bench of the Supreme Court of India comprisingof Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Atul S.Chandurkar, in a matter titled M/s Saisudhir Energy Ltd. vsM/s NTPC Vidyut Vyapar Nigam Ltd.10, Supreme Court heldthat a court exercising appellate jurisdiction under Section37 of the Act cannot re-calculate or substitute its ownassessment of compensation once a court under Section 34of the Act has determined a reasonable compensation interms of the contract.Brief Facts of the CaseThe dispute arose out of a Power Purchase Agreement (PPA)dated 24.01.2012 between the Parties (“the Agreement”).Under the Agreement, Saisudhir Energy Limited (“SEL”)undertook to commission and supply 20 MW of solar powerto NTPC Vidyut Vyapar Nigam Limited (“NVVNL”) with thecommissioning deadline fixed for 26.02.2013. NVVNL hadbeen designated by the Ministry of Power as the nodalagency for the project. SEL furnished bank guarantees interms of the PPA to secure its performance obligations.10 Civil Appeal No.(s) 12892-12893 of 2024At the pre-arbitration stage, the Delhi High Court allowed anapplication filed by SEL under Section 9 of the Act wherebyit sought to restrain NVVNL from encashing the bankguarantees. Delhi High Court granted interim protection toSEL until the arbitral tribunal could consider the matterunder Section 17 of the Act. Subsequently, arbitration wasinvoked and a three-member arbitral tribunal wasconstituted.Before the Arbitral Tribunal, SEL in terms of Section 17 of theAct sought an order restraining NVVNL from encashing thebank guarantees and claimed reimbursement of expensesincurred in maintaining them. NVVNL, on the other hand,claimed entitlement to encash the guarantees under Clause4.6 of the Agreement owing to SEL’s delay. On 21.07.2015,the tribunal delivered a split award. As per the majorityaward, SEL was liable to pay ₹1.2 crore, representing 20% ofthe original performance guarantee calculated at ₹30 lakhper MW, and SEL’s claim for reimbursement of maintenancecharges was rejected. The minority opinion held thatalthough actual loss could not be precisely determined, theliquidated damages clause represented a genuine preestimate of damages, and therefore NVVNL should bepermitted to encash bank guarantees amounting to ₹49.92crore.The Award was challenged under Section 34 of the Act byboth parties before the Delhi High Court. Vide judgmentdated 08.09.2016, the Delhi High Court observed inter aliathat although SEL was responsible for the delay, NVVNL hadnot invested in the project nor proved actual loss.Considering that the project duration was 25 years and thedelay was only a few months, the court modified the awardand granted 50% of the damages under Clause 4.6 of theAgreement, to be recovered by adjusting ₹25 lakh per monthfrom October 2016 payable to SEL.Thereafter, cross appeals were filed under Section 37 of theAct against the Judgement of Delhi High Court dated08.08.2016. On 18.01.2018, the Division Bench underSection 37 of the Act further modified the relief and directedSEL to pay ₹1,00,000 per MW for the period of delay,amounting to ₹20.70 crore, along with bank guaranteerenewal charges within six weeks.Submissions AdvancedSEL contended that NVVNL was not entitled to claimliquidated damages because it failed to prove any actual lossor damage caused by the delay in commissioning the solarpower project. SEL placed reliance on the judgement of“Kailash Nath Associates v. DDA”11, to contend that underSection 74 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, proof of damageis a prerequisite for awarding compensation for breach ofcontract. Since NVVNL had not invested any capital in theproject, it had not suffered any financial loss. SEL further11 (2015) 4 SCC 13610submitted that the Agreement was a purely commercialcontract, and the mere fact that it was executed under theJawaharlal Nehru National Solar Mission did not convert itinto a public utility project where damages could bepresumed. SEL further placed reliance on the judgment of“Gayatri Balasamy v. ISG Novasoft Technologies Ltd”12 tocontend that courts cannot undertake a merit-basedreassessment of arbitral awards.NVVNL contended that SEL had admittedly delayed thecommissioning the project which automatically triggeredClause 4.6 of the Agreement providing for liquidateddamages. NVVNL placed reliance on the judgment renderedin the matter of “Construction and Design Services vs DDA”13while asserting that where delay affects public utilityservices, loss can be presumed and liquidated damagesagreed in the contract can be enforced.The Supreme Court’s decisionThe Supreme Court upheld the single judge's ruling, holdingthat although a court under Section 34 of the Act has limitedauthority to alter an arbitral award, as acknowledged in thematter of “Gayatri Balasamy v. ISG Novasoft TechnologiesLimited”, the Division Bench under Section 37 of the Actcould not replace its own evaluation of reasonablecompensation in the absence of arbitrariness or perversity inthe Section 34 Judgment.In addition, the Court determined that the project, whichwas carried out under the National Solar Mission, containedenvironmental and public interest issues, and that Section 74of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 did not require proof ofactual loss in order to grant adequate compensation.The Court observed inter alia:“In such cases, the burden would be on theparty committing the breach to show that noloss was caused by the delay or that theamount stipulated as liquidated damages wasin the nature of penalty. In the facts of thepresent case, this burden has not beendischarged by SEL. In fact, it has remainedcontent by urging that NVVNL having failed tomake any investment under the PPA, it neithersuffered any loss of capital or loss of interest,notwithstanding the delay. Having agreed toincorporate Clause 4.6 in the PPA, it is clearthat the rights of the parties ought to bedetermined bearing in mind the terms agreedand SEL would not be justified in contendingthat NVVNL had failed to indicate the exactloss suffered by it due to the delay incommissioning of the project”.The Court upheld the single judge's ruling awarding ₹27.06crore in liquidated damages, allowing NVVNL appeal andrejecting the appeal of SEL.12 (2025) 7 SCC 1 13 (2015) 14 SCC 26311STATUTORY UPDATESAMENDMENT TO THE INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS CODE, 2020In February 2026, the Industrial Relations Code(Amendment) Act, 2026 received the assent of the Presidenton 16 February 2026, thereby amending the IndustrialRelations Code, 2020. The amendment provides that, from adate to be notified by the Central Government, the followingenactments shall stand repealed:• the Trade Unions Act, 1926;• the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946;and• the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.The amendment also clarifies that, notwithstanding therepeal of the above legislations, tribunals and statutoryauthorities constituted under the repealed enactments shallcontinue to function until corresponding tribunals orauthorities are established under the Industrial RelationsCode, 2020. This ensures that ongoing proceedings anddispute resolution mechanisms are not disrupted during thetransition to the new framework. The Amendment Act isdeemed to have come into force retrospectively from 21November 2025.Separately, the Ministry of Labour and Employment, videNotification No. S.O. 464(E) dated 2 February 2026,amended the Industrial Relations Code (Removal ofDifficulties) Order, 2025 to clarify that statutory authoritiesfunctioning under the above enactments shall continue tooperate until corresponding authorities are appointed underthe Industrial Relations Code, 2020. This clarification ensurescontinuity of functions and avoids any legal or administrativevacuum during the transition to the new framework.KARNATAKA'S GIG WORKER WELFARE FEE MANDATEThe Government of Karnataka, vide Government Order No.LD 413 LET 2023 dated 13 February 2026, has notified thecollection of a welfare fee from aggregators and platformsunder Section 20 of the Karnataka Platform Based GigWorkers (Social Security and Welfare) Act, 2025 read withRule 17 of the Karnataka Platform Based Gig Workers (SocialSecurity and Welfare) Rules, 2025.The order mandates that aggregators and platformsoperating in Karnataka shall pay a welfare fee calculated onthe final payouts made to gig workers for each transaction,excluding certain settled payments such as tips, referral fees,incentives and similar payments. The notification prescribesa welfare fee of 1% of the payout subject to category-specificcaps, applicable to services including ride-hailing, food andgrocery delivery, logistics services, e-marketplace servicesand professional activity providers.The order also provides for the establishment of a Paymentand Welfare Fee Verification System (PWVFS) to mappayments made to gig workers and monitor welfare feecollection by platforms. Until the PWVFS becomesoperational, the aggregators or platforms are allowed to selfreport to provide details of the payments made to their gigworkers for each transaction on a quarterly basis.GOVERNMENT OF GOA HIGHLIGHTS SHE-BOX PORTAL FORWORKPLACE SEXUAL HARASSMENT COMPLAINTS UNDERTHE POSH ACTOn 20 February 2026, the Department of Information &Publicity, Government of Goa, issued a public updatehighlighting the SHe-Box Portal, an initiative of the Ministry12of Women and Child Development, aimed at facilitating theeffective implementation of the Sexual Harassment ofWomen at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition andRedressal) Act, 2013 (“POSH Act”).The SHe-Box Portal serves as a centralized online platformenabling women working in both public and private sectorestablishments to file complaints of workplace sexualharassment electronically. The portal also acts as arepository of information relating to Internal Committeesand Local Committees across the country.Key features of the portal include user-friendly onlinecomplaint submission, multi-lingual support, automaticforwarding of complaints to the relevant Internal Committeeor Local Committee, and real-time tracking of complaintstatus, thereby promoting transparency and accountabilityin the grievance redressal process.Employers are required to ensure compliance with theprovisions of the POSH Act, and non-compliance may attractpenalties of up to INR 50,000 under Section 26 of the Act.DRAFT RULES RELEASED BY MULTIPLE STATES UNDER THEINDUSTRIAL RELATIONS CODE, 2020 AND THE CODE ONWAGES, 2019Various States such as Andhra Pradesh, West Bengal,Madhya Pradesh and Kerala’s Labour Department havereleased draft rules for the Industrial Relations Code, 2020,and the Code on Wages, 2019. The draft rules seek tooperationalise the provisions of the respective Codes at theState level by prescribing procedural and complianceframeworks, including matters relating to fixation andrevision of minimum wages, maintenance of registers andrecords, payment of wages, constitution of grievanceredressal mechanisms, recognition of trade unions, disputeresolution processes, and conditions relating to lay-off,retrenchment and closure. As part of the rule-makingprocess, the draft rules have been placed in the publicdomain inviting objections and suggestions fromstakeholders before their final notification.COMPLIANCE HANDBOOK FOR EMPLOYERS UNDERLABOUR CODESOn 19 February 2026, the Ministry of Labour andEmployment released a Compliance Handbook forEmployers under the four Labour Codes. The handbookserves as a practical guidance document intended to assistemployers in understanding and complying with theregulatory framework introduced under the Labour Codes.The handbook provides a concise overview of keycompliance obligations under each Code and includespractical guidance and action points for employers tofacilitate smoother implementation of the new labour lawframework. The initiative is aimed at improving regulatoryclarity and assisting organisations in adapting to thecompliance requirements arising from the consolidation ofmultiple labour laws into the four Labour Codes.JUDICIAL FINDINGSEMPLOYER CAN’T REJECT RESIGNATION CITING FINANCIALCONSTRAINTThe Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of Greevas JobPanakkal v. Traco Cable Co. Ltd. and Ors., [2026 SCC OnLineKer 2210] has ruled that an employer is not allowed to denyaccepting the resignation of an employee on the mere basisof financial constraints or operational requirements as this isa breach of Article 23 of Indian Constitution which prohibitsbonded labour.The Plaintiff did not get his salary in a long time and resignedbut the company denied it, referring to its shaky financialstatus and his importance in turnaround strategies. TheBoard of Directors declined to relieve him on the ground thatthere is no qualified person to take his place and even sentmemos directing him to resume his duties, and asking him toshow cause as to why disciplinary action should not beinitiated against him, etc.The Hon’ble Court held that once an employee submits aresignation, the employer is obligated to accept it and relievethe employee from service, subject only to the terms of theemployment contract. Such terms may include compliancewith a prescribed resignation procedure or notice period.Accordingly, a resignation may be rejected where theemployee fails to adhere to contractual conditions governingresignation.The Hon’ble Court further clarified that resignation may alsobe refused where disciplinary proceedings for gravemisconduct or for causing monetary loss to theestablishment are contemplated against the employee.However, in the absence of such circumstances, refusal toaccept a resignation would be impermissible and couldamount to bonded labour within the meaning of Article 23of the Constitution of India.The Hon’ble Court also noted that under the Companies Act,2013, where a Company Secretary is appointed by acompany, such appointment must be registered with theRegistrar of Companies. If the employer fails to initiate thestatutory process to record cessation, the CompanySecretary’s name remains linked to the company, potentiallyaffecting their ability to seek other appointments.In view of the above, the Hon’ble Court directed theRespondents to accept the Petitioner’s resignation andrelieve him from service expeditiously.13LONG STANDING DISCRETIONARY BENEFITS CANCRYSTALLISE INTO SERVICE CONDITIONS; EMPLOYERCANNOT WITHDRAW SUCH BENEFITS WITHOUT PRIORNOTICEIn the case of Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation and Orsv. Mumbai Mahanagarpalika Karyalayeen KarmachariSanghathana and Anr., [MANU/MH/1302/2026] theHon’ble Bombay High Court passed a notable judgment tothe effect that discretionary concessions that had beenconstantly awarded over the decades can becomecustomary terms of service and therefore an employer canno longer revoke it without statutory procedures asstipulated under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (“ID Act”)(i.e., issuance of notice under Section 9A of the ID Act).The dispute arose from a circular dated 5 September 2025issued by the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporationdiscontinuing a long-standing practice of granting additionalwage increments to employees who obtained Diplomas inLocal Self Government (LSGD) or Local Government Service(LGS). The Industrial Court had stayed the operation of thecircular, following which the Corporation approached theHon’ble High Court.The Hon’ble Court observed that the benefit could be tracedto a decision taken in 1967, pursuant to which additionalincrements were granted to employees acquiring specifieddiplomas in Local Self Government. The policy wassubsequently revisited, modified, and reaffirmed throughresolutions and circulars in 1968, 1975 and 1984. Theseinstruments were implemented in practice and the benefitwas extended in a consistent manner to specified clericalcadres and employees within defined pay ceilings.In light of this factual backdrop, the Hon’ble Court noted thatthe continued and uniform grant of such increments overseveral decades had resulted in the practice becoming partof the service structure of the establishment. Employeesacquiring the relevant diplomas did so with the legitimateexpectation that the additional increment would follow. TheHon’ble Court therefore held that a concession repeatedlysanctioned through formal resolutions and implementeduniformly over a long period can attain the status of acustomary concession or established usage.Referring to Item 8 of the Fourth Schedule of the ID Act(withdrawal of any customary concession or privilege orchange in usage), the Hon’ble Court held that theprospective discontinuance of the benefit constituted achange in conditions of service. The fact that the circularpreserved increments already granted and applied onlyprospectively did not alter this conclusion, as the removal ofa long-standing entitlement altered the service frameworkgoverning the affected employees.Accordingly, the Hon’ble Court held that such withdrawalwould attract the requirement of prior notice under Section9A of the ID Act. On this basis, the writ petition filed by theCorporation was dismissed.LABOUR COURTS CAN EXTEND TIME FOR COMPLIANCE OFAWARD EVEN AFTER IT BECOMES ENFORCEABLE UNDERSECTION 17 A OF THE ID ACTThe Hon’ble High Court of Kerala in I. Bindhu v.Thiruvananthapuram Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. andOrs. [MANU/KE/0433/2026] held that Labour Courts retainthe authority to extend timelines fixed in an award, evenafter the award has become enforceable under the ID Act.The Petitioner, who had been working as a pharmacist in aNeethi Medical Store operated by the Respondent Bank, wasdismissed from service in November 2012 followingdisciplinary proceedings. She challenged the dismissalbefore the Labour Court under Section 2A of the ID Act. Byits award dated 29 September 2023, the Labour Court setaside the disciplinary proceedings and permitted themanagement to initiate fresh proceedings from the stage ofissuance of the charge memo. The Labour Court also directedthat such proceedings be completed within three (3)months, failing which the Petitioner would be reinstatedwith all benefits.The Respondent Bank subsequently sought an extension oftime to complete the disciplinary proceedings. The LabourCourt granted an additional period of one (1) and a half (1/2)months. The Petitioner challenged this order before the HighCourt, contending that once the award became enforceableunder Section 17A of the ID Act, the Labour Court becamefunctus officio and lacked jurisdiction to extend the timelimit.Rejecting this contention, the Hon’ble High Court relied onthe decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in thecase of Haryana Suraj Malting Ltd. v. Phool Chand, whichrecognised that Labour Courts and Tribunals under the ID Actpossess incidental and ancillary powers to entertain certainapplications even after an award becomes enforceable. TheHon’ble Court observed that such powers are not confinedonly to applications for setting aside ex parte awards butextend to other procedural matters necessary for theeffective administration of justice.Accordingly, the Hon’ble High Court held that the LabourCourt was competent to grant the extension of time soughtby the Respondent Bank and declined to interfere with theimpugned order. The writ petition was therefore dismissed.14BOCW CESS LIABILITY CANNOT BE IMPOSED WHEREWELFARE BOARDS WERE NOT CONSTITUTEDThe Hon’ble Supreme Court in Prakash Atlanta (JV) v.National Highways Authority of India [2026 SCC OnLine SC98] examined whether liability to pay cess under the Buildingand Other Construction Workers (Regulation of Employmentand Conditions of Service) Act, 1996 (“BOCW Act”) and theBuilding and Other Construction Workers’ Welfare Cess Act,1996 (“Cess Act”) could be imposed on contractors underhighway construction contracts, and whether arbitralawards granting reimbursement of such cess deductionscould be interfered with under the limited judicial reviewframework of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Theappeals arose from multiple arbitral awards passed in favourof contractors engaged by the National Highways Authorityof India. The central dispute concerned whether cesspayable under the building and other construction workers(BOCW) welfare statutory framework could be treated as acontractor’s liability under the contract, or whether itconstituted “subsequent legislation” entitling thecontractors to reimbursement.The Hon’ble Court noted that although the BOCW Act andthe Cess Act were formally brought into force in the mid1990s, their implementation remained largely ineffective forseveral years due to the failure of authorities to constituteWelfare Boards and establish the necessary administrativemachinery for levy, collection and utilisation of the cess. TheHon’ble Court observed that the Cess Act was designed toaugment the resources of Welfare Boards constituted underthe BOCW Act, and therefore meaningful levy and collectionof cess could not arise in the absence of such Boards beingconstituted.Referring to its earlier decision in the case of A. PrabhakaraReddy and Company v. State of Madhya Pradesh, theHon’ble Supreme Court held that constitution of WelfareBoards was essential for giving practical effect to thestatutory scheme governing cess collection. In the absenceof such institutional machinery at the relevant time,contractors submitting bids could not reasonably havefactored the cess component into their pricing.The Hon’ble Court further emphasised that interpretation ofcontractual clauses (such as provisions dealing with“subsequent legislation”) falls primarily within the domain ofthe arbitral tribunal. Relying on settled principles governingjudicial review of arbitral awards under the Arbitration andConciliation Act, 1996, the Hon’ble Court reiterated thatcourts do not sit in appeal over arbitral findings. Where thetribunal’s interpretation of the contract is plausible andreasonable, it cannot be interfered with merely becauseanother view is possible. Applying these principles, the Courtheld that the interpretation adopted by the arbitral tribunalswas a plausible one and did not warrant interference underthe limited judicial review permitted by the Arbitration andConciliation Act, 1996. Accordingly, the appeals filed by theNational Highways Authority of India were dismissed. In aconnected appeal filed by the contractor, the Hon’ble Courtset aside the orders of the executing and appellate courtspermitting deduction of cess from amounts payable underan arbitral award.REQUIRED TO BE ISSUED BY THE TREATING DOCTOR UNDERTHE PROVISIONS OF THE EMPLOYEES COMPENSATION ACT,1923 (“EC ACT”)The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Mahendra SabharuMajhi v. M/s. Mahlaxmi Enterprises and Anr.[First AppealNo. 1627 of 2012] held that a claim for compensation underthe EC Act cannot be rejected solely on the ground that thedisability certificate was issued by a doctor who did not treatthe injured workman.The Appellant, who was working at a construction site,sustained back injuries after falling during the course ofemployment and subsequently sought compensation beforethe Commissioner under the EC Act. The Commissionerdismissed the claim on the ground that the disabilitycertificate relied upon by the claimant had been issued by adoctor who had not attended to the injured at the time oftreatment.Before the Hon’ble High Court, the central question waswhether the Commissioner was justified in rejecting thecompensation application solely on this basis. The Hon’bleCourt examined the statutory framework under the EC Act,particularly the requirement that loss of earning capacity beassessed by a “qualified medical practitioner”. The Hon’bleCourt noted that the EC Act defines a qualified medicalpractitioner as a person registered under the relevantmedical registration laws and does not stipulate that suchpractitioner must necessarily be the treating doctor. TheHon’ble Court observed that the purpose of obtaining adisability certificate is to secure expert medical assessmentregarding the extent of disability or loss of earning capacity.In the absence of any statutory requirement mandating thatsuch certificate be issued only by the treating doctor, aqualified medical practitioner who examines the claimant orrelies on medical records may issue the certificate anddepose before the Authority. Such testimony remainssubject to cross-examination and evaluation by theadjudicating Authority.Accordingly, the Hon’ble Court held that the Commissioner’sapproach in rejecting the claim solely on this ground waserroneous. The impugned order was therefore set aside andthe matter was remanded to the Commissioner for thelimited purpose of assessing the percentage of loss ofearning capacity on the basis of the evidence already onrecord and calculating the compensation accordingly. TheHon’ble Court clarified that the other issues stood concludedand were not open for reconsideration.15RBI ANNOUNCES REGULATORY MEASURES IMPACTINGDIGITAL FINANCE AND CONSUMER PROTECTIONRBI on February 06, 2026 has issued a Statement onDevelopmental and Regulatory Policies announcing a rangeof proposed regulatory and developmental measures acrossareas such as regulation, payments systems, financialinclusion, and financial markets (“Statement”). Among thevarious initiatives proposed, certain measures areparticularly relevant for the digital finance and fintechecosystem, especially those relating to the marketing anddistribution of financial products and safeguards in digitalpayments. Draft frameworks and discussion papers on theseinitiatives are expected to be released separately for publicconsultation.The proposed key highlights for the Fintech sector are:• The RBI has proposed to issue comprehensiveinstructions governing the advertising, marketing andsale of financial products and services by regulatedentities, with the objective of addressing concernsrelating to the mis-selling of financial products. Theproposed framework will ensure that financial productsoffered to customers, including third-party productssold through bank channels, are suitable to the financialneeds and risk appetite of customers.• Separately, RBI has announced that it will issue adiscussion paper exploring safeguards in digitalpayments to curb fraud, in light of the increasingsophistication of fraudulent activities in digital financialtransactions. The proposed safeguards may includemeasures such as lagged credit mechanisms andadditional authentication requirements for certaincategories of users, including senior citizens. Thesemeasures are intended to enhance customer protectionand strengthen trust in India’s rapidly expanding digitalpayments ecosystem.DSK View: The Statement reflects RBI’s continued focus onstrengthening consumer protection and reducing risks indigital financial services. While the Statement outlines thebroad regulatory intent, the detailed compliancerequirements will depend on the draft directions anddiscussion papers to be issued by the RBI, and marketparticipants in the fintech ecosystem will need to closelymonitor these developments once released.Read moreRBI ISSUES DRAFT DIRECTIONS ON ADVERTISING,MARKETING AND SALE OF FINANCIAL PRODUCTSRBI pursuant to the announcement made in its Statement onDevelopmental and Regulatory Policies dated February 6,2026, has issued draft amendment directions on ResponsibleBusiness Conduct for public consultation (collectively, the“Draft Directions”). The Draft Directions propose tointroduce a comprehensive regulatory framework governingthe advertising, marketing and sale of financial products andservices, including third-party products distributed byregulated entities. The Draft Directions have been issuedacross multiple categories of regulated entities, includingbanks, co-operative banks, all India financial institutions,non-banking financial companies (NBFCs), and housingfinance companies (HFCs).The Draft Directions seek to strengthen customer protectionand curb mis-selling of financial products, particularly incases where regulated entities distribute third-partyfinancial products through agency or referral arrangements.The Draft Directions introduce key regulatory concepts suchas “mis-selling,” “compulsory bundling,” “explicit consent,”and “dark patterns,” and require regulated entities to ensurethat financial products offered to customers are appropriateand suitable based on the customer’s profile, financialliteracy, risk tolerance and financial needs. The DraftDirections also prescribe detailed requirements relating to16the engagement and oversight of Direct Sales Agents (DSAs)and Direct Marketing Agents (DMAs) involved in themarketing and distribution of financial products. Regulatedentities will be required to implement comprehensiveinternal policies governing advertising, marketing and salespractices, undertake due diligence and training of agents,maintain publicly accessible lists of engaged agents, andestablish codes of conduct governing marketing andcustomer interaction practices.Further, the Draft Directions introduce safeguards aimed atpreventing misleading marketing practices and unfair digitaldesign practices, including restrictions on dark patterns inuser interfaces, requirements for clear disclosure of productfeatures, charges and the role of the regulated entity indistributing third-party products, and prohibition ofcompulsory bundling of financial products. The DraftDirections also require regulated entities to obtain explicitcustomer consent prior to the sale of financial products, andto establish customer feedback mechanisms andcompensation frameworks in cases where mis-selling offinancial products is established.DSK View: The Draft Directions indicate RBI’s intent tostrengthen regulatory oversight over the distribution offinancial products and curb mis-selling practices acrossregulated entities. Additionally, the Draft Directions areexpected to strengthen consumer protection by promotingtransparency in marketing practices and reducing instancesof mis-selling of financial products across the financial sector.Once finalised, the framework may require all regulatedentities to review their marketing practices, agentengagement models and digital interfaces to ensurecompliance with the enhanced customer protectionstandards.The detailed directions for each regulated entity areprovided in the link below.Read moreRBI PROPOSES REGISTRATION EXEMPTION FOR TYPE INBFCS WITH ASSETS BELOW INR 1,000 CROREThe Reserve Bank of India, pursuant to its Statement onDevelopmental and Regulatory Policies dated February 6,2026, issued the Draft RBI (Non-Banking FinancialCompanies — Registration, Exemptions and Framework forScale Based Regulation) Amendment Directions, 2026 (the"Draft NBFC Directions") on February 10, 2026 for publicconsultation. The Draft NBFC Directions propose to exemptNBFCs that (i) do not accept public funds (directly orindirectly), (ii) have no customer interface, and (iii) have totalassets below 1NR 1,000 crore, from the requirement ofobtaining a Certificate of Registration under Section 45-IA ofthe RBI Act, 1934. Such entities are proposed to bedesignated as "Unregistered Type I NBFCs." NBFCs alreadyregistered as Type I but satisfying these conditions may applyfor deregistration; those with assets exceeding ₹1,000 crorewill be required to obtain registration as Type I or Type IINBFCs depending on their business model.DSK View: The proposed exemption reflects RBI's riskproportionate approach to NBFC oversight — entities with nopublic exposure and no direct customer dealings areconsidered to pose minimal consumer or systemic risk. Forthe fintech ecosystem, this is particularly relevant forinvestment-holding SPVs, captive financing arms of fintechgroups, and family-office-style lending structures that maycurrently hold RBI registration. Such entities should assesswhether they satisfy the twin conditions of no public fundsand no customer interface, and evaluate the option ofderegistration. Separately, the INR 1,000 crore thresholdcreates a clear regulatory trigger point that growing fintechadjacent NBFCs must track, as crossing this threshold willmandate registration and attendant prudential compliance.Read moreRBI ISSUES DRAFT DIRECTIONS ON AGENCY BUSINESS ANDREFERRAL ARRANGEMENTS FOR FINANCIAL PRODUCTSRBI has issued the Draft Reserve Bank of India (CommercialBanks - Undertaking of Financial Services) AmendmentDirections, 2026 (the “Draft Directions for FinancialProducts”), proposing amendments to the Reserve Bank ofIndia (Commercial Banks - Undertaking of Financial Services)Directions, 2025. The Draft Directions for Financial Productsseek to revise the regulatory framework governing agencybusiness and referral arrangements for financial productsand services offered by banks.Under the Draft Directions for Financial Products, banks mayfacilitate the sale of third-party products and services (TPPS)only where such products fall within the regulatoryframework of financial sector regulators such as RBI, SEBI,IRDAI and PFRDA. The Draft Directions for Financial Productsclarify that banks may undertake such distribution activitiesunder an agency business model on a fee basis without riskparticipation, and must ensure compliance with the relevant, particularly with respect to customer protection andconduct requirements.The Draft Directions for Financial Products introduce specificrequirements governing referral arrangements. Under thismodel, banks may refer customers to third-party productand service providers (TPPSPs) only for regulated financialproducts (excluding insurance), provided that the bank’s roleremains purely referral in nature and it does not participatein marketing, distribution or grievance redressal processes.In such arrangements, banks may collect only a one-timereferral fee from the TPPSP, and must clearly disclose theirlimited role to customers through appropriate disclaimers.Note: Similar draft amendment directions have also been17issued for other regulated entities including (i) small financebanks; (ii) payments banks; (iii) regional rural banks, (iv)urban co-operative banks; (v) rural co-operative banks; and(vi) non-banking financial companies.DSK View: The Draft Directions aim to enhance transparencyand clarify the regulatory boundaries between agency-baseddistribution and referral-based financial product offerings,which may impact partnership models between banks andfintech platforms involved in digital distribution of financialproducts.Read moreNATIONAL PAYMENTS CORPORATION OF INDIAANNOUNCES FIMI A DOMAIN SPECIFIC ARTIFICIALINTELLIGENCE LANGUAGE MODEL BUILT FOR INDIA’SPAYMENT ECOSYSTEM.National Payments Corporation of India (“NPCI”) onFebruary 17, 2026, has released a domain specific languagemodel built especially for payment ecosystem of India at theIndia - Artificial Intelligence Summit 2026 named FinanceModel for India (“FiMI”). FiMI has been released with anintent to ensure higher accuracy, reliability andunderstanding of Unified Payment Interface (“UPI”)interactions. The model has been built to understand thecomplexities of India’s digital payments infrastructure,including UPI transactions, dispute resolution processes,mandate lifecycle management, and regulatory queries, andhas been trained using financial and synthetically generatedpayments data to support accurate reasoning andmultilingual interactions.FiMI is currently deployed through NPCI’s UPI Help Assistant,an AI-powered conversational support system for UPI usersthat assists with payment-related queries, grievanceredressal, and mandate management. The assistantpresently supports English, Hindi, Telugu, and Bengali, withadditional Indian languages expected to be added in thecoming months to improve accessibility. NPCI has alsoreleased a detailed technical paper outlining the model’sdevelopment methodology and evaluation results, signalingits effort to promote transparent and trustworthy AIinnovation within India’s digital payments infrastructure.Read moreNPCI COLLABORATES WITH NVIDIA TO DEVELOPSOVEREIGN AI CAPABILITIES FOR INDIA’S PAYMENTSECOSYSTEMNPCI on February 18, 2026 announced a collaboration withNVIDIA to enhance its sovereign AI capabilities for India’spayments ecosystem. The initiative aims to support theevolving requirements of large-scale, real-time paymentsystems by combining NPCI’s expertise in operatingpopulation-scale payment infrastructure with NVIDIA’sadvanced AI and accelerated computing platforms. As partof this collaboration, NPCI will leverage NVIDIA Nemotron, afamily of open AI models, to develop a payments-native AIfoundation model aligned with India’s regulatory and datasovereignty requirements.The collaboration builds on NPCI’s ongoing AI initiatives,including the recently launched UPI Help Assistant, poweredby FiMI. The NPCI through this collaboration intends to builda scalable AI layer for the payments ecosystem, exploringarchitectures such as Mixture of Experts (MoE) to supporthigh-volume, low-latency payment environments.DSK View: The initiative by NPCI is expected to facilitateinnovation across areas such as trust frameworks, grievancemanagement and operational intelligence, while enablingbanks and fintech participants to leverage AI capabilitieswithin India’s digital payments infrastructure.Read moreSEBI ISSUES MASTER CIRCULAR FOR INVESTMENTADVISERS ("IAS") ON REVISED FEE CAPS, AUADOCUMENTATION AND DISCLOSURE NORMSSEBI on February 06, 2026 issued the 2026 Master Circularfor Investment Advisers (Master Circular No.HO/38/12/11(1)2026-MIRSD-POD/I/4360/2026)consolidating all earlier directives applicable to registeredIAs into a single, comprehensive regulatory framework ("IAMaster Circular"). The IA Master Circular aims to enhanceregulatory clarity, investor protection, and ease ofcompliance, while aligning the advisory ecosystem withevolving market practices. Key provisions of the IA MasterCircular include: (i) a maximum fee cap of INR 1,51,000(Indian Rupees One Lakh Fifty One Thousand) per family perannum under the per-family fee model, with flexibility on themode of fee charging; (ii) enhanced documentationrequirements for Assets Under Advice (AUA), withmandatory suitability assessments linking advice to theclient's financial profile and risk appetite; (iii) alignment of IAobligations with the revised Investor Charter, coveringdisclosure of scope of services, fee structures, risk profilingmethodology, and grievance redressal mechanisms; and (iv)strengthened internal controls over the use of technologyand digital platforms in advisory services. The IA MasterCircular rescinds all prior individual circulars compiled withinit while preserving all past enforcement actions andliabilities.DSK View: The IA Master Circular is particularly significantfor fintech platforms offering robo-advisory, algorithmdriven investment recommendations, or hybrid humandigital advisory services. Platforms registered as IAs, or thosepartnering with registered IAs to deliver investment advicedigitally, must re-examine their fee disclosure mechanisms,18client suitability frameworks, and digital interface disclosuresto ensure compliance with the consolidated requirements.The single-reference-point structure of the Master Circularalso simplifies the regulatory audit process for IA-licensedFinTech’s.Read moreSEBI ISSUES MASTER CIRCULAR FOR RESEARCH ANALYSTS (FOR AI DISCLOSURE, DUAL REGISTRATION ANDGOVERNANCE NORMSSEBI on February 06, 2026, issued the 2026 Master Circularfor Research Analysts (Master Circular No.HO/38/12/11(1)2026-MIRSD-POD/I/4360/2026) ("RAMaster Circular") consolidating all applicable regulatorydirections for Research Analysts (“RA”) and the ResearchAnalysts Administration and Supervisory Body ("RAASB").The RA Master Circular is issued under Section 11(1) of theSEBI Act, 1992 and brings together multiple earlier circularsinto a single, accessible framework. The RA Master Circularstates that a RA or a research entity who uses any artificialintelligence tools for its work will be solely liable for thesecurity, confidentiality, and integrity of client data, andmust also disclose to clients the extent of such AI usage whileproviding research services. The circular introduces explicitguidance on AI usage and client data protection withinresearch services, while bringing together existing regulatoryrequirements governing research analysts under a unifiedframework.DSK View: The RA Master Circular has significantimplications for fintech platforms that offer AI-driven stockresearch, investment tips, or algo-strategyrecommendations. The mandatory disclosure of AI usage inresearch output is a notable development that will requireplatforms to audit and document their AI pipelines used forgenerating research. Platforms that operate dual IA-RAmodels must carefully review the conflict-of-interestsegregation requirements to ensure clean structuralseparation between their advisory and research verticals.The RA Master Circular can be accessed at the link below:Read moreSEBI CATEGORIZATION AND RATIONALIZATION OFMUTUAL FUND SCHEMESSEBI on February 26, 2026, issued a circular on“Categorization and Rationalization of Mutual FundSchemes” (Circular No. HO/24/13/15(2)2026-IMDRAC4/I/5764/2026) (“MF Circular”). The MF Circularclassifies mutual fund schemes into five categories such as,Equity, Debt, Hybrid, Life Cycle Funds, and Other Schemes(including Fund of Funds and Passive/Index schemes), eachwith clearly defined investment characteristics and uniformscheme descriptions. The key highlights of this MF Circularare (i) the introduction of “Life Cycle Fund” category, withtenures ranging from 5 to 30 years and a built-in glide-paththat automatically reduces equity exposure as the fundapproaches maturity; and (ii) portfolio overlap betweenthematic/sectoral funds and other equity fund categories iscapped at 50%, subject to a three-year compliancetransition. This MF circular expands the permissible residualportfolio for equity schemes to include gold, silverinstruments, and InvITs, and for hybrid schemes to includeGold ETFs, Silver ETFs, ETCDs, and InvITs (except for arbitragefunds). For debt schemes, the residual portion may beinvested in InvITs, though this excludes overnight, liquid,ultra-short duration, low duration, and money market funds.In addition, it provides that existing schemes are required tocomply with the revised provisions within six months fromthe date of the MF Circular, with changes to nomenclature,investment objectives, and strategy not being treated asfundamental attribute changes.DSK View: The discontinuation of solution-oriented fundsand the introduction of Life Cycle Funds represents asignificant structural shift for fintech platforms offering goalbased investing or retirement planning products built aroundexisting retirement or children's fund categories. Platformsthat have curated journeys around these solution funds willneed to redesign their product architecture and revisecustomer communications. Conversely, the Life Cycle Fundstructure opens a new product opportunity for retirementtech fintechs, given the built-in glide-path mechanism whichaligns well with digital, set-and-forget investment journeystargeting long-term retail investors.The detailed MF Circular can be accessed at the link below:Read moreORISSA HIGH COURT SEEKS CLARIFICATION ON LEGALSTATUS OF CRYPTOCURRENCY IN INDIAThe High Court of Orissa, in Padmini Meher v. State of Odisha(CRLMC No. 2031 of 2025, order dated February 23, 2026),raised significant questions regarding the legal status ofcryptocurrency in India while hearing a matter involvingallegations linked to digital asset transactions. The Courtobserved that the absence of a comprehensive legislativeframework governing cryptocurrencies has createdambiguity regarding whether such assets should be treatedas legal, illegal, or regulated within India’s current financialand regulatory system. Recognising the technical andregulatory complexity surrounding cryptocurrencytransactions, the Court directed the Superintendent of Policeand the Nodal Officer of the Cyber Cell, Balangir, to appearbefore it and assist in clarifying issues including the legalstatus of cryptocurrency, the existence of any statutoryprohibition on its possession or trade, the applicableregulatory framework, and the manner in which crypto-19related offences are currently investigated and prosecutedin India.DSK View: The order reflects the continued legal andregulatory ambiguity surrounding cryptocurrencies in India,highlighting the need for clearer legislative and regulatoryguidance on the treatment and enforcement of virtual digitalasset transactions.Read more20REVISED GUIDELINES FOR COAL AND LIGNITE BASEDTHERMAL POWER PLANTS (‘TPPs’)March 15, 2024, the Ministry of Power, Government of Indiahas, on January 30, 2026, issued revised guidelines(‘Guidelines’), in relation to disposal of ash from coal andthermal power plants and utilisation of same for ash basedproduct manufacturing. The Guidelines aim to streamlineprocess of disposal / supply of ash by TPPs to bulk consumersfor further utilisations.The summary of key aspects from the Guidelines areprovided below:• TPPs must annually declare the quantity of Issuable FlyAsh, after excluding existing tie-ups and technicalrestrictions. This disclosure enables bulk consumers toplan capacity and supports long-term, sustainableprocurement arrangements.• TPPs must reserve a defined portion of Issuable Fly Ash(the quantity of fly ash available for sale or disposal by aTPP) in a given year for Medium and Small Enterprisesand local users at concessional rates.• The Guidelines prescribe a three-step ash-disposalhierarchy, namely: (a) auction at a floor price of ₹1/MT;(b) free allocation on a first-come basis,; and (c) freedelivery to agencies of identified avenues (such as roads,dams, low lying areas, etc.) situated within a 300 kmsfrom TPPs.• Upon exhausting the aforesaid three steps, the TPPsmay transport any remining ash for utilisation toagencies of identified avenues which are situatedbeyond 300 kms and in this regard, the transportationcost shall be limited to the notional cost for distance ofupto 300 kms only.• TPPs must maintain a competitively selected panel oftransport agencies aligned with State or CentralSchedule of Rates. The bidding process must be initiatedin advance to avoid panel gaps and ensureuninterrupted, compliant ash-logistics operations.• The Guidelines must be followed by every coal or ligniteTPPs (including captive and co-generating stations)Read moreNOTIFICATION ON TERMS AND CONDITIONS FORPURCHASE AND SALE OF CARBON CREDITCERTIFICATES (’CCCs’)The Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (‘CERC’) has,by way of Notification No. RA-14026(13)/1/2024-CERC notified the CERC (Terms and Conditions for Purchaseand Sale of Carbon Credit Certificates) Regulations 2026(‘Regulations’), for the development of the Indian carbonmarket. The Regulations have been notified pursuant to theCarbon Credit Trading Scheme 2023 (‘2023 Scheme’). TheRegulations bifurcate the market into two segments, aCompliance Market for obligated entities (being notifiedregistered entities) and an Offset Market for non-obligatedentities (being registered entities who can purchase carboncredit certificates on voluntary basis). Trading is primarilythrough power exchanges, with monthly transaction cyclesand the option for alternative mechanisms, and entitiesdefaulting more than three times in a quarter face asix-month trading bar.The highlights of the Regulations are provided below:• To manage the exchanges of CCC, the Grid Controller ofIndia has been designated to function as the Registry forCCC.• The Bureau of Energy Efficiency (‘BEE’), theAdministrator for CCCs, is responsible for developing21transaction procedures, managing registrations andtransfers, and coordinating between Power Exchangesand the Registry. It also monitors compliance,disseminates market information, and alerts theRegistry on certificate expiries.• Transactions are conducted through Power Exchanges(or other CERC-permitted modes). Trading sessionstypically occur on a monthly basis, or as determined bythe CERC. Exchanges must seek CERC approval for their"Business Rules" and "Byelaws" specifically for CCCtrading.• One CCC represents the reduction or avoidance of onemetric ton of CO₂-equivalent, with valuation aligned tothe 2023 Scheme. Its validity depends on proceduresprescribed under the Compliance or Offset mechanismsin accordance with Section 12 of the 2023 Scheme.• CCC trading operates within a Commission-approvedprice corridor consisting of a floor and forbearanceprice.• Entities are barred from placing sale bids exceeding theiractual CCC holdings, with the Registry cross-checkingbids across exchanges.• Power exchanges must submit detailed transactionreports to the Registry after every session to ensureaccount balances are updated immediately.Read moreNATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA (‘NHAI’) - SOPFOR ONE TIME SETTLEMENT OF CONTRACTUAL DISPUTESUNDER THE VIVAD SE VISHWAS -III SCHEMENHAI has issued a Standard Operating Procedure (‘SOP’) on20 February 2026 for one-time settlement of contractualdisputes under the Vivad se Vishwas-III Scheme (‘Scheme’),allowing monetary arbitral awards and court orders underSections 34 and 37 up to Rs. 500 crore to be settled at fixedpercentages. Claims must be filed on the Government eMarketplace (‘GeM’) portal by 31 March 2026, with a 30-dayoffer-acceptance period and mandatory withdrawal ofexisting litigation within 45 days, providing a time-bound,cost-effective mechanism to resolve long-pending disputes.The highlights of the SOP are provided below:• The Scheme establishes that for a dispute to be eligiblefor settlement, arbitral awards must have been passedon or before October 31, 2025. For court-relatedmatters, orders issued under Section 34 or Section 37 ofthe Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996, must have beenpassed by November 30, 2025. Furthermore, thescheme only applies to awards involving purelymonetary values; any awards requiring specificperformance of a contract are strictly excluded.• Settlement amounts are fixed at 45% for arbitralawards, 65% for Section 34 orders, and 70% for Section37 orders, calculated on the lower of the award ororiginal claim.• The Scheme covers awards upto Rs. 500 crore. However,if a claimant with an award exceeding this amount stillwishes to settle, they may do so, but the settlement willbe calculated as if the award were capped at Rs. 500crore. Final settlement cannot exceed the amountpayable under the earlier settlement scheme for olderawards.• Claims must be filed on GeM by March 31, 2026. Afteraccepting the offer, contractors must withdraw pendinglitigation within 45 days and execute the settlementagreement within 30 days thereafter.Read morePROTECTION OF INTERESTS IN AIRCRAFT OBJECTS RULES,2026 (‘PIAO Rules’)The Ministry of Civil Aviation (‘MoCA’) has notified theAircraft Objects Rules, 2026 (‘PIAO Rules’), pursuant to theProtection of Interests in Aircraft Objects Act, 2025 (‘Act’), tooperationalise India’s commitments under the Conventionon International Interests in Mobile Equipment and theProtocol thereto on Matters Specific to Aircraft Equipment(‘Convention’). These Rules establish the proceduralframework for recognition, registration and enforcement ofinternational interests in aircraft objects within India.The highlights of the PIAO Rules are:• The PIAO Rules enable registration of internationalinterests in aircraft objects through a DGCA-supervisedelectronic system, ensuring standardised recording. Thisframework operationalises recognition of such interestsin alignment with the Convention.• The Rules recognise specified non-consensual rights orinterests as registrable under Article 40, withoutaffecting India’s Article 39(1)(a) declaration on unpaidairline-employee wages under the Convention.• Operators must report all international interests withinprescribed and transitional timelines and maintainupdated records of dues, charges and statutoryliabilities.22• The Rules require electronic notification of defaultbefore creditors exercise remedies, with all detailsrecorded in the information system to supporttransparent enforcement.
Read moreISSUES DRAFT NATIONAL WATER METRO POLICY, 2026The Ministry of Ports, Shipping, and Waterways (‘MOPSW’)has released the Draft National Water Metro Policy,2026 (‘Draft Policy’) on February 6, 2026, to create a unifiedframework for integrating water-based mass passengertransport into India’s urban mobility system (‘Water MetroSystem’). The Draft Policy aims to leverage inland andcoastal waterways to develop sustainable, reliable andefficient urban and regional water transit, reducingcongestion and promoting green, multimodal connectivity. Itdefines the Water Metro System as including scheduledwater buses and water taxis operating across various waterbodies, and emphasises standardised vessel designs, safetyand seamless integration with existing transport networks.The highlights of the Draft Policy are provided below:• The Draft Policy promotes sustainable transport bymandating standardised vessels designed for low- orzero-emission propulsion, including electric and hybridsystems.• It sets out project-planning principles, eligibility criteriaand requirements for detailed proposals, includingtechno-economic analysis and mobility integration.• The Policy provides flexible financing options such asjoint State-Central funding, fully State-funded modelsand PPPs supported by viability-gap funding.• Fare structures must comply with applicable legalframeworks and be tailored to corridor-specific needs,while encouraging integrated ticketing and non-farerevenue streams. It also supports value-captureopportunities to strengthen commercial viability.Read moreGUIDELINES FOR THE INTEREST INCENTIVIZATION FUNDThe Ministry of Ports, Shipping, and Waterways (‘MOPSW’)has issued the Guidelines for the Interest IncentivizationFund (‘IIF’) under the Maritime Development Fund (‘IIFGuidelines’) on February 26, 2026, operationalising atargeted interest support mechanism to strengthen India’sshipbuilding sector. It focuses on expanding domesticshipbuilding capacity, enhance global competitiveness, andimprove access to affordable financing for maritime sectorentities.The highlights of the IIF Guidelines are:• The IIF Guidelines aims to reduce borrowing costs forIndian shipyards by providing interest incentives oneligible term and working capital loans availed fromRBI-regulated lenders.• Pursuant to IIF Guidelines, a 3% per annum interestincentive will be provided on eligible loans, subject toapplicable ceilings, fund availability and annualnotifications. The incentive amount is determinedstrictly in accordance with the scheme’s financialparameters.• The Rs. 5,000-crore corpus will operate for ten yearsuntil 31 March 2036, with loans sanctioned during thisperiod continuing to receive support for their eligibletenure.• The Implementing Agency designated by MOPSW(being Sagarmala Finance Corporation Limited), shallbe responsible for eligibility assessment, loan tagging,claim verification, incentive computation and release,performance monitoring and reporting to MOPSW.• Borrowers must approach their lenders for loansanction, after which proposals are forwarded to theImplementing Agency for approval under the IIFframework. Verified incentive amounts are periodicallycredited to the borrower’s loan account followingsubmission of audited certificates and compliancedocuments.• Continuous monitoring is undertaken throughsystem-based tracking, periodic loan reviews andannual evaluations of scheme effectiveness, supportedby a designated Nodal Officer framework.Read moreSUPREME COURT EXAMINES THE VALIDITY OF RULE 23 OFELECTRICITY (AMENDMENT) RULES, 2024The Hon’ble Supreme Court has issued notice in a writpetition by Tamil Nadu Power Distribution CorporationLimited (‘TNPDCL’) challenging Rule 23 of the Electricity(Amendment) Rules, 2024 (‘Rules’) and, in the process,strongly criticised the State of Tamil Nadu’s promise ofsubsidised or “free” electricity as part of what it described asa troubling “freebie culture” that ignores fiscal realities.Background: Rule 23 of the Rules mandates that the gapbetween the approved Annual Revenue Requirement and23the estimated annual revenue from tariff is to not exceed 3%and must be liquidated within three years for new gaps andseven years for existing regulatory assets, along withcarrying costs calculated at the base rate under theElectricity Late Payment Surcharge framework. TNPDCLclaims that this Rule imposes a rigid and uniform liquidationmechanism without accounting for the financial structureand welfare obligations of State-owned utilities, along witha retrospective applicability.Observations of Court: The Hon’ble Supreme Court hadissued notice and raised broader concerns regarding fiscaldiscipline and statutory compliance. The Hon’ble SupremeCourt questioned the practice of states absorbing electricitydistribution losses without advance financial planningand observed that if a state intends to grant subsidy, it mustdo so in advance under Section 65 of the Electricity Act, 2004so that it can be factored into tariff determination. Referringto its earlier decision in BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd v. Union ofIndia, the Bench indicated that post-facto financial supportmay disturb the statutory framework governing costreflective tariffs. While TNPDCL specifically raised the issuesof retrospective operation and non-consideration ofrelevant factors, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has not yetexpressed any final opinion on these aspects and has keptthe questions open for detailed examination after hearing allparties.Read moreLOWEST BID RECORDED FOR GREEN HYDROGEN IN INDIAIndia has received its lowest-ever bid for green hydrogen ina Government tender, marking a significant milestone in itsclean energy transition. This recent tender to supply 10,000tonnes of green hydrogen annually to Numaligarh RefineryLtd. in Assam, received a bid of Rs. 279 per kilogram, whichis the all-time lowest price recorded in India’s history. Theunusually low price was possible due to low renewableenergy costs in India, along with government incentives suchas financial support for production, equipmentmanufacturing, and a full waiver of transmission charges forelectricity used in green hydrogen production.The Government officials see this as an important step inmaking India a cost-competitive producer of greenhydrogen, which is considered a key fuel for decarbonisingheavy industries like steel and cement. To boost domesticdemand, the Government is working with refineries tocreate consumption targets, along with efforts to beginexporting green ammonia, which is a derivative of greenhydrogen, as early as 2028, as the talks are ongoing withbuyers in Europe and Japan.Read more24EXPORT PROMOTION MISSION UNDER FTP 2023: ANACADEMIC ANALYSIS OF DGFT TRADE NOTICES 25-29/2025-26INTRODUCTION AND LEGAL FRAMEWORKOn 20 February 2026, the Directorate General of ForeignTrade (DGFT) issued Trade Notices No. 25 to 29 of 2025-26introducing a series of policy interventions under the ExportPromotion Mission (EPM), commonly referred to as NIRYATDISHA and NIRYAT PROTSAHAN. These measures,introduced under the Foreign Trade Policy (FTP) 2023,represent a coordinated effort to strengthen India's exportecosystem through targeted institutional and logisticalsupport. The interventions have been notified withimmediate effect on a pilot basis, while stakeholdercomments have been invited in accordance with Paragraph1.07A of the Foreign Trade Policy 2023 to enable institutionallearning and policy refinement.Taken together, the Trade Notices address several structuralconstraints affecting export competitiveness, particularlyamong Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises (MSMEs). Theinterventions span five dimensions of export development,that are, access to trade finance, regulatory compliance,trade intelligence, domestic logistics, and overseas logisticsinfrastructure. MSME exporters frequently encounterconstraints in these areas despite their significantcontribution to India's manufacturing and export base, andthe EPM seeks to address these systemic limitations througha coordinated policy framework.The Trade Notices have been issued under the enablingprovisions Paragraph 1.07A of FTP 2023, which authorisesthe DGFT to notify procedural frameworks and invitestakeholder consultation prior to their finalisation. Eachintervention is supported by a structured frameworkconsisting of policy guidelines, operational procedures,governance arrangements, and application mechanisms. Theadoption of a pilot-based approach indicates an intention todevelop these interventions through institutional learningand data-driven refinement before their widerimplementation.The EPM must also be understood in the context of thegradual evolution of India's export promotion policy. Earlierexport promotion schemes, such as the Merchandise Exportsfrom India Scheme and the Services Exports from IndiaScheme, relied predominantly on fiscal incentives in theform of transferable duty credit scrips. While such schemesprovided immediate financial support to exporters, theyincreasingly came under scrutiny within the framework ofinternational trade disciplines governing export subsidies.In contrast, the EPM reflects a shift toward a more structuralapproach to export promotion. Rather than relying primarilyon fiscal incentives, the new framework seeks to improveexport competitiveness by addressing underlying constraintsrelating to finance availability, regulatory compliance,logistics efficiency, and institutional support. By emphasisingcost reduction and infrastructure access instead of exportcontingent incentives, the framework represents a policydesign that is more consistent with contemporaryinternational trade rules.Trade Notices No. 25-29 of 2025-26 therefore represent asignificant step toward the development of an integratedand institutionally grounded export support ecosystemunder the Foreign Trade Policy 2023.Trade Notice No. 25/2025-26: Alternative Trade FinanceSupportTrade Notice No. 25/2025-26 introduces support foralternative trade finance instruments with particularemphasis on export factoring arrangements. The schemeaims to improve access to export finance for MSMEs bypromoting non-traditional financing mechanisms alongsideconventional bank credit.The intervention includes interest subvention support onfactoring costs for eligible exporters. By reducing the cost ofreceivables financing, the scheme seeks to address liquidity25constraints that frequently limit the export capacity ofsmaller firms.The policy significance of this intervention lies in itsrecognition that export finance in India remains heavilydependent on bank-based lending. Factoring and receivablesfinancing mechanisms remain underdeveloped despite theirwidespread use in global trade. By supporting alternativetrade finance instruments, the scheme seeks to diversify theexport finance ecosystem and improve financial inclusionamong MSME exporters.The intervention is structured as a financial facilitationmeasure rather than an export-contingent subsidy. Thisdistinction is significant in ensuring consistency withinternational subsidy disciplines.Trade Notice No. 26/2025-26: TRACE - Compliance andAccreditation SupportTrade Notice No. 26/2025-26 introduces the TradeRegulations, Accreditation and Compliance Enablement(TRACE) intervention. The scheme addresses the growingimportance of technical regulations and conformityassessment requirements in international trade.The TRACE intervention provides support for expensesincurred in meeting regulatory requirements in exportmarkets, including testing, certification, inspection, andtechnical audits. Increasingly stringent regulatory standardshave become a major non-tariff barrier affecting exporters,particularly smaller firms that lack the resources to maintaindedicated compliance systems.The scheme represents an acknowledgment that technicalcompliance has become an essential component of exportcompetitiveness. Market access is no longer determinedsolely by tariff concessions but increasingly depends on theability of exporters to meet regulatory and standardsrequirements.TRACE is significant because it promotes compliance withimporting-country regulations rather than providing exportincentives. Such compliance-oriented support measures aregenerally considered permissible under international traderules.Trade Notice No. 27/2025-26: INSIGHT - Trade Intelligenceand FacilitationTrade Notice No. 27/2025-26 introduces the IntegratedSupport for Trade Intelligence and Facilitation (INSIGHT)intervention. The scheme seeks to address informationasymmetries that often hinder export development,particularly among first-time exporters.The intervention focuses on the dissemination of tradeintelligence, export guidance, and institutional coordinationamong export promotion agencies. By strengtheninginformation flows and institutional support systems, thescheme aims to improve exporter preparedness and reduceentry barriers.The INSIGHT intervention reflects an understanding that lackof information and institutional support remains a significantconstraint on export participation. The scheme thereforerepresents a shift toward a knowledge-based approach toexport promotion.From an administrative perspective, INSIGHT may be viewedas an attempt to institutionalise export facilitation within acoordinated policy framework.Trade Notices No. 28 and 29/2025-26: Logistics-BasedInterventionsTrade Notices No. 28 and 29 introduce two complementarylogistics interventions under the Export Promotion Mission.Trade Notice No. 28/2025-26 introduces the FacilitatingLogistics, Overseas Warehousing and Fulfilment (FLOW)intervention. The scheme seeks to improve exporter accessto overseas logistics infrastructure, including warehousing,distribution networks, and fulfilment arrangements. The lackof overseas distribution infrastructure has historically limitedthe ability of MSME exporters to participate effectively inglobal value chains. The FLOW intervention addresses thisconstraint by supporting the creation or use of overseaslogistics facilities.Trade Notice No. 29/2025-26 introduces the FacilitatingLogistics Interventions for Freight and Transport (LIFT)scheme. The intervention aims to address geographicaldisadvantages faced by exporters located in low exportintensity regions. By supporting freight and transport costs,the scheme seeks to reduce logistics disadvantages arisingfrom distance from ports and logistics hubs.The FLOW and LIFT schemes together create acomprehensive logistics support framework covering bothdomestic and international supply chains. The dual approachreflects an understanding that logistics costs constitute amajor structural barrier affecting export competitiveness inIndia.From a legal standpoint, logistics support measures aregenerally regarded as infrastructure-related interventionsrather than export subsidies. The design of FLOW and LIFTtherefore reduces the risk of challenges under internationaltrade rules.STRUCTURAL TRANSFORMATION IN EXPORT PROMOTIONPOLICYTrade Notices 25-29 collectively indicate a structuraltransformation in India’s export promotion strategy. Earlierexport promotion frameworks relied heavily on fiscalincentives in the form of transferable duty credit scrips. Suchschemes were relatively simple to administer but26increasingly difficult to sustain under international tradedisciplines.The EPM adopts a different approach by addressingunderlying constraints affecting export competitiveness. Theinterventions collectively target finance availability,regulatory compliance, information access, and logisticsefficiency.This structural approach represents a more sustainablemodel of export promotion because it enhances long-termcompetitiveness rather than providing short-term financialincentives.DSK View: Trade Notices No. 25-29 of 2025-26 represent acoordinated policy initiative under the Export PromotionMission aimed at strengthening India’s export ecosystem.The interventions reflect a transition from subsidy-basedexport promotion toward a structural competitivenessframework centred on finance access, compliance capability,information support, and logistics infrastructure. From legalperspective, the Export Promotion Mission represents asignificant evolution in India’s trade policy architecture. Thepilot-based implementation suggests that these schemesmay form the foundation of a long-term export promotionframework under the Foreign Trade Policy 2023. If effectivelyimplemented, the Export Promotion Mission has thepotential to expand India’s export base by addressingstructural constraints that have historically limited theparticipation of MSMEs in international trade.27MADRAS HIGH COURT GRANTS PRE-RELEASE ANTI-PIRACYINJUNCTION FOR FILM 'O ROMEO'The Madras High Court (“Court”) has granted an interim antipiracy injunction restraining internet service providers andcable television operators from broadcasting, transmitting,or disseminating the film titled 'O Romeo' (“Film”) withoutauthorisation ahead of its theatrical release. The Courtobserved that pre-release piracy causes immediate andirreversible harm to the financial and commercial interestsof the Film’s producers. The Court also acknowledged,however, that broadly framed John Doe or dynamicinjunctions risk prejudicing the legitimate business interestsof intermediaries and service providers. To strike anappropriate balance, the injunction was made conditionalupon the producer of the Film furnishing an indemnityundertaking to compensate respondents for any genuinebusiness losses occasioned by enforcement of the order.MEITY NOTIFIES 2026 AMENDMENTS TO THE IT(INTERMEDIARY GUIDELINES AND DIGITAL MEDIA ETHICSCODE) RULES AFTER PUBLIC CONSULTATIONThe Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology(“MeitY”) published draft amendments to the InformationTechnology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital MediaEthics Code) Rules (“IT Rules”) on October 22, 2025, invitingpublic consultation while clarifying that submissions wouldbe treated as confidential and held in a fiduciary capacity.The final amendments were notified on February 10, 2026,accompanied by an FAQ document, and took effect onFebruary 20, 2026. The amendments go beyond syntheticcontent regulation alone and, while they address certainconcerns previously raised by civil society, a clause-by-clausereview reveals that they also give rise to new issueswarranting scrutiny. On the question of syntheticallygenerated information, the amendments introduce a set ofheightened obligations. Intermediaries are required to acton unlawful content within 3 (three) hours of gainingknowledge of it, deploy technical measures to prevent thecirculation of illegal AI-generated material, apply mandatorylabels and disclosures, preserve relevant metadata, andrefrain from tampering with content identifiers. Significantsocial media intermediaries and online gamingintermediaries face additional requirements i.e., they mustobtain declarations from users regarding AI-generatedcontent, verify those declarations, and ensure such contentis appropriately labelled prior to publication. Noncompliance with these obligations may result in theintermediary being treated as having failed to satisfy its duediligence requirements under the IT Rules.AD INTERIM EX PARTE INJUNCTION GRANTED IN KARANJOHAR'S DEFAMATION SUIT AGAINST YOUTUBER AJEYNAGARMumbai High Court (“Court”) has granted an ad interim exparte injunction in favour of Karan Johar (“Plaintiff”) in adefamation suit filed against YouTuber Ajey Nagar andseveral other defendants (“Defendants”). Finding a primafacie case on the basis of vulgar and abusive language usedin digital content targeting the Plaintiff, the Court directedthe Defendants to refrain from publishing defamatory,vulgar, or abusive material about Johar, and ordered socialmedia platforms including Meta to take down existing videosin question. Notwithstanding the submissions by theDefendants that the offending content had already beenremoved, the Court held that defamatory statements hadprima facie been made and accordingly granted thetemporary injunction. The matter has been listed for furtherhearing on a subsequent date.SUPREME COURT DISPOSES OF PLEA CHALLENGING FILMTITLE 'GHOOSKHOR PANDAT' AFTER FILMMAKERS AGREETO CHANGE TITLEThe Supreme Court (“Court”) while hearing a plea seeking astay on the over-the-top (OTT) release of the film titled'Ghooskhor Pandat' (“Film”), observed that a film’s titleought not to denigrate any section of society. The Court28issued notices to the Ministry of Information andBroadcasting, the Central Board of Film Certification, and thefilmmaker of the Film, directing the latter to file an affidavitaffirming that the Film does not denigrate any section ofsociety, and made clear that the Film would not be permittedto release unless the title was changed. The Courtsubsequently disposed of the petition after the filmmakersof the Film agreed to abandon the contested title. The pleahad alleged that the title was offensive and liable to hurt thesentiments of a section of society. In view of the filmmakers'decision to change the title of the Film, the Court found nooccasion to proceed further with the matter.COMPLAINT FILED AGAINST TEASER OF FILM 'TOXIC' OVERALLEGED HURT TO RELIGIOUS SENTIMENTSA Christian organisation has filed complaints with the CentralBoard of Film Certification (“CBFC”), the Film Chamber ofCommerce, and state authorities alleging that the teaser ofthe film 'Toxic' (“Film”) hurts religious sentiments. Thecomplaint takes issue with scenes depicting ArchangelMichael and a sequence in which a sex scene inside a carparked outside a cemetery is followed by a violent shootout,with the cemetery shown bearing religious symbols. Theorganisation has sought removal of the objectionableportions from the Film and the takedown of the teaser of theFilm.MADRAS HIGH COURT DECLINES INTERIM STAY ON OTTRELEASE OF 'PARASAKTHI' IN PLAGIARISM DISPUTEThe Madras High Court (“Court”) has declined to restrain theover-the-top (OTT) release of the film titled 'Parasakthi'(“Film”) in a plagiarism suit filed by an assistant director(“Petitioner”) who alleges that the Film's story was copiedfrom his work titled 'Semmozhi'. The Petitioner had soughtan interim stay on the digital release, which the Courtrefused, listing the matter for hearing on February 09, 2026.The producers of the Film, in their reply opposing theallegations, contended that the anti-Hindi agitation of 1965constitutes a historical event that belongs to the publicdomain and to society at large, and as such cannot be subjectto a claim of copying.JAMMU COURT RESTRAINS 18 CABLE OPERATORS FROMUNAUTHORISED REBROADCASTING OF JIOSTAR CONTENTThe District Court of Jammu (“Court”) has restrained 18(eighteen) cable operators (“Defendants”) across Jammu &Kashmir from rebroadcasting live sports and entertainmentcontent of JioStar India Private Limited (“Plaintiff”) withoutauthorisation. Principal District Judge, R.N. Watal, passed theorder in a civil suit filed by the Plaintiff seeking a permanentinjunction and damages of ₹2 crore for alleged infringementof its copyright and broadcast reproduction rights. ThePlaintiff submitted that it holds exclusive broadcast anddistribution rights over more than 100 (hundred) televisionchannels across multiple languages and has securedexclusive media rights for several major sporting eventsthrough agreements with the Board of Control for Cricket inIndia. The Plaintiff alleged that despite the termination of itsSubscription Licence Agreement with one of the defendantsowing to non-payment of dues and disconnection of signalsin December 2025, the defendant continued retransmittingits channels and live sports content. It was further allegedthat the Defendants illegally downlinked channels via DDFree Dish and rebroadcast them to subscribers, includingcoverage of time-sensitive events such as the TATA Women'sPremier League 2026 and the New Zealand Tour of India2026. The Plaintiff contended that such acts constituteviolations of the Copyright Act, 1957, the Cable TelevisionNetworks (Regulation) Act, 1995, and the Cable TelevisionNetworks Rules, 1994, all of which require writtenauthorisation from broadcasters for retransmission. TheCourt, upon examining the records and an affidavitsupported by documentary evidence including video clips ofthe alleged unauthorised broadcasts, restrained theDefendants along with unknown operators impleaded asJohn Doe from retransmitting, rebroadcasting,disseminating, or communicating the Plaintiff’s content. Thematter is listed for hearing on March 12, 2026.KERALA HIGH COURT DIVISION BENCH LIFTS STAY ONRELEASE OF 'THE KERALA STORY 2 - GOES BEYOND'A Single Judge Bench of the Kerala High Court (“Court”) onFebruary 26, 2026 stayed the release of 'The Kerala Story 2 -Goes Beyond' (“Film”), finding that the Central Board of FilmCertification (“CBFC”) had prima facie overlooked CentralGovernment guidelines against content contemptuous ofreligious groups or likely to endanger public order. The Courtdirected the Central Government to consider a pendingrevision petition within 2 (two) weeks and restrained theFilm's release for 15 (fifteen) days. Hours later, a DivisionBench comprising Justices Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikariand P.V. Balakrishnan held an urgent hearing and set asidethe Single Judge's order, paving the way for the Film'srelease. The Division Bench held that since the CBFC hadviewed the Film in its entirety before granting certification,there arose a prima facie presumption that the CBFC hadapplied its mind in accordance with Section 5B of theCinematograph Act, 1952, and the relevant guidelines. TheDivision Bench further noted that the petitioners had notwatched the full Film and that the producer had carried outinsertions, excisions, and modifications as directed by theCBFC. The Division Bench relied on the Supreme Court'sruling in the case of Viacom 18 Media Pvt. Ltd. v. Union ofIndia, which held that CBFC certification raises a prima faciepresumption that all relevant guidelines including publicorder have been considered, and on Atul Mishra v. Union ofIndia, which reiterated that apprehensions of law and ordercannot justify halting a film cleared by the statutory body.The matter has been posted for further hearing.29DELHI HIGH COURT GRANTS EX PARTE INJUNCTIONPROTECTING PERSONALITY RIGHTS OF SINGER JUBINNAUTIYALThe Delhi High Court (“Court”) has passed a John Doe ordergranting an ex parte ad interim injunction in favour of JubinNautiyal (“Plaintiff”), restraining AI platforms, websites, ande-commerce intermediaries from the unauthorised use andcommercial exploitation of his personality and publicityrights. The suit alleged that certain AI platforms haddeployed machine learning algorithms to create audio andvisual content mimicking the Plaintiff’s name, voice, andmanner of singing for unauthorised commercial gain, whiledigital design platforms were found to be sellingmerchandise bearing his name, image, and likeness. Ecommerce platforms including Flipkart and Amazon werealso alleged to have exploited his publicity rights byadvertising and offering for sale unauthorised merchandise.The Court, finding that the Plaintiff had made out a primafacie strong case for protection and that the damage to hisimage and personality appeared real and present, grantedinterim protection against all named and unknowndefendants.INDIAN MUSIC RIGHTS BODIES LAUNCH SANGEET DWAR ASSINGLE-WINDOW PUBLIC PERFORMANCE LICENSINGPORTALLeading music rights organisations including IPRS, PPL,Novex, and RMPL have jointly soft-launched Sangeet Dwar,a unified digital portal designed to simplify publicperformance licensing in India. The platform enables eventorganisers, venue owners, and hospitality operators toobtain performance licences through a single interface,eliminating the need to approach multiple agenciesseparately. The initiative addresses longstanding compliancegaps in India's music licensing ecosystem, where a significantproportion of public performances spanning weddings,corporate events, festivals, and hospitality venues — havehistorically taken place without proper authorisation,resulting in considerable royalty losses for composers,lyricists, performers, and labels. By consolidatingpermissions, standardising workflows, and offeringtransparent pricing, Sangeet Dwar seeks to formalise thisunder-licensed market and expand royalty streams for rightsholders across the industry.MADRAS HIGH COURT DISMISSES ACTOR VISHAL'S PLEAFOR ADDITIONAL TIME TO REPAY LOAN TO LYCAPRODUCTIONSThe Madras High Court (“Court”) has dismissed actor Vishal'sapplication seeking additional time to deposit ₹10 crore inCourt in connection with a loan repayment dispute with LycaProductions. A division bench, which had granted an interimstay on a single judge's June 2025 order directing repaymentof ₹57 crore, had made the stay conditional upon Vishaldepositing ₹10 crore within 4 (four) weeks. Having alreadybeen afforded considerable time without compliance, theCourt declined to grant a further extension and dismissedthe petition. Lyca Productions is now at liberty to proceedwith its execution petition before the single judge to enforcethe original judgment.MIB NOTIFIES ACCESSIBILITY GUIDELINES MANDATINGCAPTIONS AND AUDIO DESCRIPTIONS FOR OTTPLATFORMSThe Ministry of Information and Broadcasting (“MIB”) issuedthe Guidelines for Accessibility of Content on Platforms ofPublishers of Online Curated Content (OTT Platforms) forPersons with Hearing and Visual Impairment on 6 February2026, requiring streaming platforms to progressively embedaccessibility features for viewers with hearing and visualimpairments. All newly published content must, within 36(thirty-six) months of the notification, carry at least 1 (one)accessibility feature for each category of impairment,including closed or open captioning, Indian Sign Languageinterpretation for hearing-impaired users, and audiodescription tracks for visually-impaired audiences. Platformsmust also display accessibility indicators such as CC, AD, andISL at the time of content release, including on trailers andteasers, and ensure that their websites, mobile applications,and smart TV interfaces are compatible with assistivetechnologies. Compliance will be tracked through anaccessibility conformance report due after 36 (thirty-six)months, followed by quarterly progress reports, with a 3(three) tier grievance redress mechanism culminating in agovernment-led monitoring committee. Furthermore,certain categories of content are exempted from themandatory requirements i.e. live content, audio-onlycontent such as music and podcasts, and standalone shortform content are excluded from the same.CELEBRITY & PERSONALITY RIGHTSDELHI HIGH COURT UPHOLDS KAJOL'S PERSONALITYRIGHTS AGAINST UNAUTHORISED USEThe Delhi High Court (“Court”) has affirmed the protectionof actor Kajol's personality rights and right to privacy againstunauthorised use of her identity and persona. Recognisingthe enforceability of personality rights, the Court directedthat her identity and persona be protected againstunauthorised commercial exploitation.BOMBAY HIGH COURT GRANTS EX PARTE INTERIMPROTECTION TO SHATRUGHAN SINHA AGAINSTUNAUTHORISED EXPLOITATION OF PERSONALITY RIGHTSIn the matter of Shatrughan Prasad Sinha v. John Doe, Meta& Ors., the Bombay High Court (“Court”) granted ex parte adinterim relief in favour of Shatrughan Sinha by an orderdated February 16, 2026. The suit, filed by Shatrughan Sinhaunder the Court's ordinary original civil jurisdiction, seekspermanent and mandatory injunctions restraining30unidentified individuals and platforms from infringing hispersonality rights, encompassing his name, screen persona,voice, image, catchphrase, and distinctive performancestyle.DELHI HIGH COURT GRANTS EX PARTE INJUNCTIONPROTECTING SWAMI RAMDEV'S PERSONALITY RIGHTSAGAINST AI DEEPFAKESThe Delhi High Court (“Court”) has granted an ex parte adinterim injunction in favour of Swami Ramdev (“Plaintiff”),restraining the unauthorised use of the Plaintiff’s name,voice, image, likeness, and distinctive style in AI-generateddeepfakes, fabricated endorsements, and other commercialcontent. The Court found that the unauthorised creation andcirculation of deepfake videos depicting the Plaintiff asendorsing products with which he has no association primafacie constitutes misappropriation of his goodwill amountingto passing off, and that digitally altered content bearing hisname and voice risks tarnishing his credibility andundermining public trust. The Court restrained thedefendants from exploiting his persona for commercial orpersonal gain, with the order expressly covering AIgenerated content, deepfake videos, voice-cloned audio,and metaverse environments. Google, Amazon India, MetaPlatforms, X Corp, and Pinterest were directed to take downand block identified URLs within 72 (seventy-two) hours,with the Department of Telecommunications and Ministry ofElectronics and Information Technology (MeitY) directed toissue corresponding blocking directions.31zCIRCULAR ON COMPANIES COMPLIANCE FACILITATIONSCHEME, 202614The Ministry of Corporate Affairs (“MCA”), through itsGeneral Circular dated February 24, 2026, has introducedthe Companies Compliance Facilitation Scheme, 2026(“CCFS-2026”). This circular streamlines the process forcompanies to regularize their pending annual filings,effectively providing a one-time window to update thecorporate registry and reduce the financial burden ofaccumulated late fees. By exercising powers under theCompanies Act, 2013, the Ministry has clarified that thescheme aims to support a diverse range of entities includingMSMEs, One Person Companies (OPCs), and new-ageentrepreneurs that have struggled to maintain timelycompliances. To qualify for relief under this framework,companies must file the relevant e-forms, such as AnnualReturns and Financial Statements, within the designatedperiod to benefit from a significant reduction in additionalfees.The framework further elaborates on the diverse optionsavailable to entities based on their operational status,distinguishing between active companies and those seekingto exit the registry. For companies wishing to remain active,the primary relief is the requirement to pay only 10% of thetotal additional fees prescribed under the rules for delayedfilings. Inactive or defunct entities are empowered to utilizethe scheme to transition to a “dormant company” status athalf the normal filing fee or opt to be struck off the registerby paying only 25% of the applicable filing fees. A significantfocus of the CCFS-2026 is the provision of immunity fromcertain penal proceedings; the circular mandates that nopenalty shall be leviable for defaults under sections 92 or14https://www.mca.gov.in/bin/ebook/dms/getdocument?doc=NjM4NTY0NzE1&docCategory=Circulars&type=opensection 137 if the filings are completed before or shortlyafter an adjudication notice is issued.Aligning with the rigorous standards of India's corporategovernance, the circular mandates that the immunity isconditional and does not extend to companies alreadyundergoing liquidation or those categorized as "vanishingcompanies." The circular will come into effect at a later date,specifically on April 15, 2026.THE COMPANIES (ACCOUNTING STANDARDS)AMENDMENT RULES, 202615The MCA through its Notification dated March 10, 2026, hasintroduced the Companies (Accounting Standards)Amendment Rules, 2026. This amendment streamlines theregulatory landscape for income tax accounting, effectivelyamending the Companies (Accounting Standards) Rules,2021 to address international tax reforms. By inserting newparagraphs into Accounting Standard (AS) 22, the MCA hasclarified the application of accounting principles to taxesarising from the Pillar Two model rules published by theOECD. To qualify under this framework, tax laws must beenacted or substantively enacted to implement these modelrules, including qualified domestic minimum top-up taxes. Asa temporary exception to standard requirements, the rulesmandate that an enterprise should neither recognize nordisclose information regarding deferred tax assets andliabilities specifically related to Pillar Two income taxes.The framework further elaborates on the diverse disclosurerequirements for enterprises, distinguishing betweenperiods when legislation is enacted and when it becomeseffective. For current operations, an enterprise must discloseits current tax expense or income related to Pillar Two taxes15https://www.mca.gov.in/bin/ebook/dms/getdocument?doc=NjMwMjcwOTM4&docCategory=Notifications&type=open32separately. A significant focus of the 2026 Amendment Rulesis the provision of "known or reasonably estimable"information to help stakeholders understand an enterprise'sexposure to these reforms. This ensures that financialstatements remain a credible source of information,requiring enterprises to provide qualitative details on howthey are affected and quantitative indications, such as theproportion of profits subject to these taxes or changes inaverage effective tax rates.Aligning with the rigorous standards of India's corporatefinancial reporting, the circular mandates that registeredenterprises excluding Small and Medium-sized Companiesfor certain disclosures adhere to strict transparency norms.This includes the mandatory disclosure of the application ofthe recognition exception and progress reports if specificexposure assessments are not yet fully estimable. Thisamendment marks a shift toward a more mature regulatoryenvironment for international taxation, providing a clearroadmap for organizations looking to navigate thecomplexities of global tax reforms while meeting the highwater mark of Indian accounting regulation. The notificationcame into effect immediately upon its publication in theOfficial Gazette, though specific disclosure requirements(paragraphs 32B-32D) apply to annual reporting periodsbeginning on or after April 1, 2025.ADJUDICATION OF PENALTIES UNDER THE LIMITEDLIABILITY PARTNERSHIP ACT, 200816The MCA through its Notification dated February 10, 2026,has introduced a significant administrative frameworkgoverning the adjudication of penalties under the LimitedLiability Partnership Act, 2008. This notification modernizesthe regulatory landscape for LLP effectively supersedingprior notifications to provide a single, updated jurisdictionalroadmap for the enforcement of the Act. By appointingspecific Registrar of Companies (“ROC”) as adjudicatingofficers, the MCA has clarified the territorial limits andregistration-based authority required for an entity to besubject to penal proceedings. To qualify under thisframework, an adjudicating officer must exercise powerswithin the specific states, union territories, or districtsidentified by the regulator, ranging from the National CapitalTerritory of Delhi to the various regional jurisdictions acrossIndia.The framework further elaborates on the diverseorganizational structures of the registry, distinguishingbetween the needs of standalone Registrars and thosefunctioning as Registrar of Companies-cum-OfficialLiquidators. For standard administrative zones, the primaryvehicle for adjudication remains the designated regionalROC, while specific territories like Uttarakhand, Goa, and16https://www.mca.gov.in/bin/ebook/dms/getdocument?doc=NjMwMjcxNDgy&docCategory=Notifications&type=openJaipur are empowered to utilize combined offices to attractgreater administrative efficiency. A significant focus of the2026 Notification is the standardization of the appellateprocess, requiring enterprises to file appeals againstadjudication orders before the concerned Regional Directorhaving jurisdiction over those specific offices.Aligning with the rigorous standards of India's corporategovernance, the notification mandates that all pendingproceedings and appeals adhere to the newly definedjurisdictional norms. This includes the mandatory transfer ofmatters to the relevant adjudicating officers as per theupdated list, ensuring transparency to the level of localdistricts and aligning the LLP Act with broader judicial andadministrative-ownership frameworks. The notificationcame into effect at a later date, specifically on February 16,2026.GOVERNANCE OF REGIONAL DIRECTORS UNDER THECOMPANIES ACT, 2013 AS APPLIED TO LLP17The MCA through its Notification dated February 10, 2026,has introduced a targeted amendment to the delegation ofpowers governing the Regional Directors under theCompanies Act, 2013, as applied to Limited LiabilityPartnerships (“LLP”). This notification updated theadministrative oversight structure to provide a more robustrulebook for the corporate-legal ecosystem. By amendingthe prior notification dated February 11, 2022, the MCA hasclarified the specific Regional Directorates empowered toexercise delegated authority under section 458 of theCompanies Act. To qualify under this framework, the scopeof delegated authority has been expanded from the originalseven locations to a more comprehensive list of ten RegionalDirectorates across India.The framework further elaborates on the diversegeographical jurisdictions, distinguishing between the newlyadded directorates and the existing administrative hubs. ForLLPs, the primary oversight now rests with RegionalDirectors stationed at Ahmedabad, Bangalore, Chandigarh,Chennai, Guwahati, Hyderabad, Kolkata, Mumbai, NaviMumbai, and New Delhi. A significant focus of the 2026Notification is this expansion, which includes newdesignations such as Bangalore, Chandigarh, and NaviMumbai, ensuring that the regulatory reach remains acredible platform for genuine governance. This ensures thatthe administrative machinery can provide high-fidelityoversight to inform the capital allocation and compliancestrategies of entities operating across these expandedregions.Aligning with the rigorous standards of India's corporatelaws, the circular mandates that the exercise of these powersremains subject to the Central Government’s ongoingsupervision. This includes the "look-through" application of17https://www.mca.gov.in/bin/ebook/dms/getdocument?doc=NjMwMjcwOTA0&docCategory=Notifications&type=open33Section 458 of the Companies Act to the LLP framework,ensuring transparency and aligning the administrativestructure with broader corporate-governance frameworks.The notification came into effect at a later date, specificallyon February 16, 2026.ADJUDICATION OF PENALTIES UNDER THE COMPANIESACT, 201318The MCA, through its Notification dated February 10, 2026,has introduced a significant administrative frameworkgoverning the adjudication of penalties under theCompanies Act, 2013. This notification effectivelysuperseding fragmented prior notifications to provide asingle, updated rulebook for the enforcement of the Act. Byappointing specific ROC as adjudicating officers, the MCA hasclarified the territorial limits and registration-basedauthority required for an entity to be subject to penalproceedings. To qualify under this framework, anadjudicating officer must exercise powers within the specificstates, union territories, or districts identified by theregulator, ranging from the National Capital Territory ofDelhi to the various regional jurisdictions across India.The framework further elaborates on the diverseorganizational structures of the registry, distinguishingbetween the needs of standalone Registrars and thosefunctioning as Registrar of Companies-cum-OfficialLiquidators. For standard administrative zones, the primaryvehicle for adjudication remains the designated regionalROC, while specific territories like Chhattisgarh andRajasthan are empowered to utilize combined offices toattract greater administrative efficiency. A significant focusof the 2026 Notification is the standardization of theappellate process, requiring enterprises to file appealsagainst adjudication orders before the concerned RegionalDirector having jurisdiction over those specific offices.Aligning with the rigorous standards of India's capitalmarkets, the notification mandates that all pendingproceedings and appeals adhere to the newly definedjurisdictional norms. This includes the mandatory transfer ofmatters to the relevant adjudicating officers as per theupdated list, ensuring transparency to the level of localdistricts and aligning the Companies Act with broader judicialand administrative frameworks. The notification came intoeffect at a later date, specifically on February 16, 2026.18https://www.mca.gov.in/bin/ebook/dms/getdocument?doc=NjMwMjcxMDA4&docCategory=Notifications&type=open34• .FOREIGN EXCHANGE MANAGEMENT (BORROWING ANDLENDING) (FIRST AMENDMENT) REGULATIONS, 2026The Reserve Bank of India (“RBI”) vide Notification No. FEMA3(R)(5)/2026-RB dated February 09, 2026, has notified theForeign Exchange Management (Borrowing and Lending)(First Amendment) Regulations, 2026 (“AmendmentRegulations”), amending the Foreign ExchangeManagement (Borrowing and Lending) Regulations, 2018(“Principal Regulations”). The Amendment Regulations interalia provide new restrictions on end-use of borrowed fundsand amends the legal framework relating to the ExternalCommercial Borrowing (“ECB”).Key Features:• Restriction on end-use of borrowed funds: Regulation3A has been introduced in the Principal Regulations, interms of which borrowed funds cannot be utilised forspecified purposes, including towards chit funds, Nidhicompanies, real estate business and construction offarmhouses, specified agricultural and plantationactivities, trading in Transferrable Development Rights,transacting in listed/unlisted securities (except forstrategic corporate actions), repayment of certaindomestic Indian Rupees (“INR”) denominated loans(including non-performing assets or loans availed forrestricted end-uses), and on-lending for prohibitedpurposes. Specific conditions have been prescribedunder Regulation 3A, for borrowing for constructiondevelopment projects, for instance, development oftrunk infrastructure is now required to be completedprior to sale of plots. Additionally, borrowing forindustrial parks shall comprise of minimum 10 (Ten)units, cap of 50% (Fifty Percent) allocable area per unit,and minimum 66% (Sixty Six Percent) allocation forindustrial activity. Borrowing for corporate actionsinvolving securities is permitted only for strategicpurposes aimed at long-term value creation.• Borrowing by Individuals from NRI/OCI Relatives:Existing Regulation 6(B) of the Principal Regulation hasbeen replaced to include certain conditions (as detailedbelow) with respect to a person resident in Indiaborrowing in INR from a Non-Resident Indian (“NRI”) ora relative who is an Overseas Citizen of India (“OCI”)cardholder for utilisation in India, being: (a) loanproceeds must be received by inward remittance or bydebit to NRE / NRO / FCNR(B) / SNRR account of thelender; and (b) borrowing shall be on a non-repatriationbasis, with repayment of principal and interest only tothe lender’s Non Resident Ordinary account.• Revised External Commercial Borrowing Framework:Schedule I of the Principal Regulations has beensubstituted to provide a revised ECB framework, whichincludes the following:− Eligible Borrower shall be any person resident inIndia (other than individuals)incorporated/established under a Central or StateAct, including those under restructuring orinsolvency (if permitted under the approvedresolution plan), and entities with any pendinginvestigation, adjudication or appeal (withmandatory disclosure of such investigation,adjudication or appeal in Form ECB 1).− ECB may be raised from: (a) persons residentoutside India; or (b) branch outside India of anentity whose lending business is regulated by RBI;or (c) financial institutions or branches of financialinstitution in IFSC.− ECB may be denominated in foreign currency orINR, with permitted change of currency subject tothe exchange rate prevailing on the date of theagreement for such change or at an exchange ratewhich does not result in a liability higher than that35arrived at by using the exchange rate prevailing onthe date of the agreement.− ECB may be raised under any form of commercialborrowing arrangement that involves payment ofagreed interest, if any, by whatever name called,and repayment of principal, (including ForeignCurrency Convertible Bond and Foreign CurrencyExchangeable Bond). Funds received on or afterApril 30, 2007, from issuance of preference sharesor debentures which are not fully and mandatorilyconvertible to equity shares shall be treated as ECB.− An eligible borrower may raise ECB up to the higherof: (i) outstanding ECB of such eligible borrowerbeing up to USD 1,000,000,000 (United StatesDollars One Billion); and (ii) total outstandingborrowing of such eligible borrower being up to300% (Three Hundred Percent) of net worth (withexemptions for regulated entities) of the eligibleborrower.− ECB shall be raised with Minimum Average MaturityPeriod (“MAMP”) of 3 (Three) years, with relaxationfor manufacturing sector, where the MAMP may beof 1 (One) year to 3 (three) years, subject to USD150,000,000 (United States Dollars One HundredFifty Million) cap. [Please confirm the edits if it isshall or may]− ECB may be secured by charge on immovableassets, movable assets, financial assets andintangible assets and guarantees (subject to FEMA(Guarantees) Regulations, 2026), with detailedenforcement conditions. RBI-regulated entities areprohibited from issuing guarantees. The borrowingdocument executed for the ECB shall includecreation of such security and such ECB shall besubject to obtaining no-objections certificate fromthe existing lenders of the borrower. In case ofenforcement of security, the claim shall be limitedto outstanding claim of such ECB and encumberedmoveable assets may be taken out of the countrysubject to obtaining a no objection certificate fromthe existing lender(s) of the borrower in India.− The Amendment Regulations permit refinancing ofECB, subject to MAMP compliance and conversionof the ECB into non-debt instruments in accordancewith FEMA (Non-Debt Instruments) Rules, 2019.− The Amendment Regulations prescribe submissionof Form ECB 1, Revised Form ECB 1, and Form ECB 2within specified timelines and introduces latesubmission fee mechanism; and also provides fortreatment of “untraceable borrowers” after fourconsecutive quarters of reporting failure; andmandates reporting to RBI and Directorate ofEnforcement where applicable.• An eligible borrower shall drawdown ECB only afterobtaining the Loan Registration Number from RBI,through designated AD Category I Bank.DSK View: The Amendment Regulations significantlyenhances the ECB framework by expanding borrowing limits,tightening end-use restrictions, strengthening reportingcompliance, and enhancing clarity on security, refinancingand conversion mechanisms. The revised framework reflectsRBI’s intent to provide operational flexibility while reinforcingprudential oversight and end-use discipline under the FEMAregime.Read moreUNIQUE TRANSACTION IDENTIFIER FOR OTC DERIVATIVETRANSACTIONSThe RBI vide notification bearing No. RBI/2025-26/222 datedFebruary 18, 2026 has introduced a framework mandatingthe use of a Unique Transaction Identifier (“UTI”) for overthe-counter (“OTC”) derivative transactions (“UTIFramework”).The UTI Framework aligns domestic reporting requirementswith global standards and seeks to enhance transparencyand oversight of the OTC derivatives market. The UTIFramework shall come into effect from January 01, 2027 andshall apply to OTC derivative transactions entered into on orafter such date.The UTI Framework shall apply to all OTC derivativetransactions undertaken under the specified ‘GoverningDirections’, which shall include: (i) Foreign ExchangeManagement (Foreign Exchange Derivative Contracts)Regulations, 2000; (ii) Master Direction - Risk Managementand Inter-Bank Dealings; Master Direction - Reserve Bank ofIndia (Rupee Interest Rate Derivatives) Directions, 2025;Reserve Bank of India (Forward Contracts in GovernmentSecurities) Directions, 2025;Master Direction - Reserve Bank of India (Credit Derivatives)Directions, 2022; andAny other direction(s) as may be specified by the RBI.The key features of the OTC Framework shall include:• Mandatory Generation and Structure of UTI: UTI shallbe generated and/or reported for all reportable OTCderivative transactions. UTI shall be generated inaccordance with the CPMI-IOSCO UTI TechnicalGuidance (February 2017). UTI shall have a maximum of52 characters comprising the Legal Entity Identifier(“LEI”) of the generating entity followed by a uniqueidentifier. UTI shall remain unique to a derivativetransaction throughout its lifecycle.36• For transactions reportable only in India: UTI shall begenerated by: (i) Central Counterparty (“CCP”), if CCP iscounterparty; (ii) Electronic Trading Platform (“ETP”), ifexecuted on ETP; (iii) Mutually agreed entity betweencounterparties; and (iv) Clearing Corporation of IndiaLimited - Trade Repository (“CCIL-TR”).• For transactions reportable in India and in one or moreforeign jurisdictions: UTI shall be generated by: (i) CCP;(ii) Clearing Member (if counterparty); (ii) ETP (ifexecuted on ETP); (iii) Entity as per foreign jurisdictionrequirements (where foreign jurisdiction has soonerreporting timeline); (iv) Mutually agreed entity (whereno sooner foreign timeline);and (iv) CCIL-TR.• Where a transaction is reported without a UTI, CCIL-TRshall generate the UTI.• Cross-Jurisdictional Reporting Timelines: Fortransactions reportable in India and in a foreignjurisdiction having a sooner reporting timeline, marketparticipants shall undertake reasonable efforts to obtainand report the UTI within such deadline. In case ofinability to obtain UTI within the reporting timeline, theUTI shall be submitted to CCIL-TR at the earliest, but inany case within 5 (Five) business days (in Mumbai) fromthe date of transaction. Any temporary UTI initiallyreported or generated shall be treated as an interim UTI.• Lifecycle Events and Amendments: Post-reportingamendments to a derivative contract shall not requiregeneration of a new UTI. Lifecycle events such asnovation resulting in creation of a new reportablederivative contract shall require generation of a newUTI.• Operational Guidelines and Compliance: CCIL-TR shallissue operating guidelines and reporting formats for UTIreporting. Market participants shall ensure necessaryarrangements are in place to comply with the UTIFramework.DSK View: The mandatory implementation of UTI Frameworkformalises India’s alignment with global CPMI-IOSCOstandards for OTC derivatives reporting. The waterfallallocation of responsibility and cross-border reportingsafeguards are expected to enhance consistency, reduceduplication, and strengthen regulatory oversight ofderivative market transactions.Read moreRESERVE BANK OF INDIA (SMALL FINANCE BANKS -PRUDENTIAL NORMS ON CAPITAL ADEQUACY) SECONDAMENDMENT DIRECTIONS, 2026The RBI vide circular RBI/2025-26/218 dated February 13,2026 (DOR.CRE.REC.409/21-01-002/2025-26) has issued theReserve Bank of India (Small Finance Banks - PrudentialNorms on Capital Adequacy) Second Amendment Directions,2026 (“SFB Amendment Directions”). The SFB AmendmentDirections have been issued in exercise of powers underSections 21 and 35A of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949, andpursuant to the Reserve Bank of India (Small Finance Banks- Prudential Norms on Capital Adequacy) Directions, 2025(“Capital Adequacy Directions”) and consequent to theissuance of the Reserve Bank of India (Small Finance Banks -Credit Facilities) Amendment Directions, 2026.Paragraph 74(6) under ‘Chapter IV - Risk weighted assets(RWAs)’ of the Capital Adequacy Directions has beenamended by the SFB Amendment Directions to include theissuance of an irrevocable payment commitment by a SmallFinance Bank (“SFB”), to clearing corporations of stockexchanges on behalf of its client, as a financial guaranteewith a Credit Conversion Factor (“CCF”) of 100% (OneHundred Percent). However, capital shall be maintained onlyon the exposure reckoned as capital market exposure(“CME”) in terms of the Reserve Bank of India (Small FinanceBanks - Concentration Risk Management) Directions, 2025.Accordingly, capital shall be maintained on the amounttaken for CME, and a risk weight of 125% (One HundredTwenty Five Percent) shall be applied on such exposure.The SFB Amendment Directions shall come into force fromthe date on which a bank decides to implement theprovisions of the Reserve Bank of India (Small Finance Banks- Credit Facilities) Amendment Directions, 2026 or April 1,2026, whichever is earlier.DSK View: The SFB Amendment Directions provides clarity oncapital treatment of irrevocable payment commitmentsissued by SFBs to clearing corporations by aligning suchexposures with capital market exposure norms. Byprescribing a 100% (Hundred Percent) CCF but restrictingcapital maintenance to CME with a 125% (One HundredTwenty Five Percent) risk weight, the SFB AmendmentDirections ensures prudential alignment while avoidingduplication of capital requirements.Read moreRESERVE BANK OF INDIA (COMMERCIAL BANKS -PRUDENTIAL NORMS ON CAPITAL ADEQUACY) SECONDAMENDMENT DIRECTIONS, 2026The RBI has issued the Reserve Bank of India (CommercialBanks - Prudential Norms on Capital Adequacy) SecondAmendment Directions, 2026 vide circular RBI/2025-26/213dated February 13, 2026 (“CBCA Amendment Directions”).The CBCA Amendment Directions amend Paragraph 84(6) ofChapter IV - ‘Risk Weighted Assets (RWAs)’ of the ReserveBank of India (Commercial Banks - Prudential Norms onCapital Adequacy) Directions, 2025 (“CBCA Directions”).Pursuant to the CBCA Amendment Directions, the issue of anirrevocable payment commitment by a bank to clearingcorporations of stock exchanges on behalf of its client shall37be treated as a financial guarantee with a Credit ConversionFactor (“CCF”) of 100% (One Hundred Percent). However,capital shall be maintained only on the exposure reckoned ascapital market exposure (“CME”) in terms of the ReserveBank of India (Commercial Banks - Concentration RiskManagement) Directions, 2025. Accordingly, capital isrequired to be maintained on the amount taken for CME,and a risk weight of 125% (One Hundred Twenty FivePercent) shall be applied on such exposure.The CBCA Amendment Directions shall come into force fromthe date on which a bank decides to implement theprovisions of the Reserve Bank of India (Commercial Banks -Credit Facilities) Amendment Directions, 2026 or from April1, 2026, whichever is earlier.DSK View: The CBCA Amendment Directions bring clarity tothe prudential capital treatment of irrevocable paymentcommitments issued to clearing corporations by aligningsuch exposures with capital market exposure norms. Whileretaining a 100% (One Hundred Percent) CCF classification,the CBCA Amendment Directions ensures that capital ismaintained specifically on CME with a 125% (One HundredTwenty Five Percent) risk weight, thereby avoidingduplicative capital requirements and enhancing regulatoryconsistency.Read moreVOLUNTARY RETENTION ROUTE - IMPARTINGPREDICTABILITY AND INCREASING EASE OF DOINGBUSINESSThe RBI vide A.P. (DIR Series) Circular No. 21 dated February06, 2026 (RBI/2025-26/205) (“VRR Circular”) has issueddirections, to revise the regulatory framework governinginvestments under the Voluntary Retention Route (“VRR”)for Foreign Portfolio Investors (“FPIs”) under Paragraph 15of the Statement on Developmental and Regulatory Policies,announced as a part of the bi-monthly Monetary PolicyStatement for 2025-26 dated February 06, 2026. The VRRRevised Direction have been issued with reference toSchedule 1 to the Foreign Exchange Management (DebtInstruments) Regulations, 2019 and the Master Direction -Reserve Bank of India (Non-resident Investment in DebtInstruments) Directions, 2025 (“Master Direction VRR”), asamended from time to time.Pursuant to the VRR Circular, the investment limits underVRR shall be subsumed under the investment limit for FPIinvestments under the General Route. Accordingly, allinvestments through VRR in Central Government securities(including Treasury Bills), State Government securities andcorporate debt securities shall be reckoned under therespective investment limits applicable under the GeneralRoute. Further the circular also provides that the FPIs thathave availed retention periods longer than the minimumretention period stipulated under the Master Directions VRRshall have the option of liquidating their portfolio, fully orpartly, and exiting the VRR after completion of the minimumretention period.Consequential amendments have been carried out to theMaster Direction VRR, including:(i) insertion of a new clause clarifying that investments underVRR shall be reckoned under the General Route limits; (ii)substitution of paragraph 5.3 (Part - 3) to provide thatinvestments under VRR shall be subject to the investmentlimit stipulated for FPI investments under the General Route;(iii) omission of the existing footnote relating to VRR-specificlimits; and (iv) insertion of a new clause in paragraph 5.5permitting FPIs to liquidate and exit after the minimumretention period, even where a longer retention period hadoriginally been opted.The amendments pursuant to VRR Circular shall come intoforce with effect from April 01, 2026. All existing investmentsunder VRR as on April 01, 2026 shall be transferred to therespective investment limits under the General RouteDSK View: The VRR Circular rationalises the VRR frameworkby integrating its investment limits with the General Route,thereby simplifying the regulatory architecture andenhancing flexibility for FPIs. The optional exit mechanismpost minimum retention period further strengthens investorconfidence while maintaining regulatory discipline.Read moreLENDING TO MICRO, SMALL & MEDIUM ENTERPRISES(MSME) SECTOR (AMENDMENT) DIRECTIONS, 2026The RBI has issued the Lending to Micro, Small & MediumEnterprises (MSME) Sector (Amendment) Directions, 2026vide circular RBI/2025-26/206 dated February 09, 2026(“MSME Amendment Directions”). The MSME AmendmentDirections amend the Master Direction - Lending to Micro,Small & Medium Enterprises (MSME) Sector (“MSMEDirections”).Pursuant to the MSME Amendment Directions, paragraph4.1 of the MSME Directions relating to ‘Collateral’ has beensubstituted. The amended paragraph provides that: -• Banks shall not accept collateral security in respect ofloans of up to Rs. 20,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Lakh)extended to units in the Micro and Small Enterprises(“MSE”) sector. Banks are also advised to extendcollateral-free loans up to Rs. 20,00,000/- (RupeesTwenty Lakh) to all units financed under the PrimeMinister Employment Generation Programmeadministered by Khadi and Village IndustriesCommission.• Banks may, based on the good track record and financialposition of MSE units, increase the collateral-free limitup to Rs. 25,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Lakh) inaccordance with their internal policy.38• Banks may avail the benefit of Credit Guarantee Schemecover, where applicable.• Acceptance of gold and silver as collateral, pledgedvoluntarily by borrowers for loans sanctioned up to thecollateral-free limit, shall not be treated as a violation ofthe above mandate.DSK View: The MSME Amendment Directions enhance creditaccess for MSE units by strengthening the collateral-freelending framework and providing greater operationalflexibility to banks based on borrower track record. Theclarification regarding voluntary pledge of gold and silverensures regulatory consistency while preserving borrowerchoice.Read moreRESERVE BANK OF INDIA (NON-BANKING FINANCIALCOMPANIES - CREDIT FACILITIES) AMENDMENTDIRECTIONS, 2026The RBI has issued the Reserve Bank of India (Non-BankingFinancial Companies - Credit Facilities) AmendmentDirections, 2026 vide circular bearing no. RBI/2025-26/209dated February 13, 2026 (“NBFC CF AmendmentDirections”). The NBFC CF Amendment Directions have beenissued consequent to the Reserve Bank of India (NonBanking Financial Companies - Income Recognition, AssetClassification and Provisioning) Amendment Directions,2026. The NBFC CF Amendment Directions have been issuedin exercise of the powers conferred under Chapter III-B ofthe Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934 and other enablingprovisions, the RBI being satisfied that the same is necessaryand expedient in public interest.Pursuant to the NBCF CF Amendment Directions, Paragraph25(1) of the Reserve Bank of India (Non-Banking FinancialCompanies - Credit Facilities) Directions, 2025 (“NBFC CFDirections”) has been substituted to provide that assetclassification of individual loan assets and the consequentprovisioning requirement shall be in terms of the ReserveBank of India (Non-Banking Financial Companies - IncomeRecognition, Asset Classification and Provisioning)Directions, 2025.DSK Views: The NBFC CF Amendment Directions align theasset classification and provisioning framework applicable toNBFC credit facilities with the revised IRACP framework,ensuring regulatory consistency and harmonisation acrossprudential norms governing non-banking financialcompanies.Read moreRESERVE BANK OF INDIA (COMMERCIAL BANKS -CONCENTRATION RISK MANAGEMENT) AMENDMENTDIRECTIONS, 2026The RBI has issued the Reserve Bank of India (CommercialBanks - Concentration Risk Management) AmendmentDirections, 2026 vide circular RBI/2025-26/212 datedFebruary 13, 2026 (“CB CRM Amendment Directions”). TheCB CRM Amendment Directions amend the Reserve Bank ofIndia (Commercial Banks - Concentration Risk Management)Directions, 2025 (“CB CRM Directions”).The CB CRM Amendment Directions have introduced thefollowing key modifications in CB CRM Directions:• Role of the Board: Paragraph 6(1)(v) of the CB CRMDirections has been substituted to require a policy forfixing intra-day exposure limits to the capital marketswithin the prudential limits prescribed for aggregatecapital market exposures (“CME”).• Scope of CME: CME of a bank shall include both directand indirect exposures (fund-based and non-fundbased), including:− Investment exposures such as equity, preferenceshares, convertible instruments, units of non-debtmutual fund schemes, Real Estate InvestmentTrusts, Infrastructure Investment Trust andAlternative Investment Funds; and− Credit exposures including advances against sharesor convertible instruments (as primary security orcollateral), advances to individuals for capitalmarket investments (including IPOs/FPOs/ESOPs),credit facilities to CMIs, acquisition finance,financing to non-debt mutual fund schemes, bridgefinance for equity contribution, underwritingcommitments, irrevocable payment commitments(“IPCs”) and trade exposures as clearing member.• Prudential Ceilings: Aggregate CME of a bank (on soloand consolidated basis) shall not exceed 40% (FortyPercent) of its eligible capital base. Within this:− Direct capital market exposure (investmentexposures) shall not exceed 20% (Twenty Percent)of eligible capital base;− Aggregate exposure to acquisition finance shall notexceed 20% (Twenty Percent) of eligible capitalbase (within the 40% aggregate CME ceiling); and− Separate sub-limits for intra-day exposure to asingle counterparty and aggregate intra-dayexposures are required.• Exemptions from CME: Specified exposures areexcluded from CME computation, including investmentsin subsidiaries, joint ventures and sponsored RRBs;investments in specified critical financial infrastructure(as listed in substituted Annex II); specified portions of39acquisition finance used for refinancing; investments incertain debt instruments of banks/financial institutions;preference shares without voting rights; specifiedunderwriting commitments; exposure to brokers (otherthan in equity and commodity segments); and exposureto CMIs form market making in debt instruments.• Computation Methodology: Direct investment shall becalculated at cost price. Credit exposures shall bereckoned at sanctioned limits or outstanding, whicheveris higher (subject to specific carve-outs). IPC exposuresshall be included at prescribed percentages of netsettlement obligation depending on settlement cycle.Exposures may be offset by cash and Governmentsecurities subject to prescribed haircuts under theCapital Adequacy Directions.• New definitions have been inserted, including“Acquisition Finance”, “Bridge Finance”, “Capital MarketIntermediaries (“CMIs”)”, “Collateral Security”, “Nondebt Mutual Funds” and “Primary Security”, largelyaligned with the definitions under the Reserve Bank ofIndia (Commercial Banks - Credit Facilities) Directions,2025.• Deletions and Substitutions: Certain paragraphs andsections relating to earlier CME framework (includingParagraphs 95, 97, 98, 101, 102 to 107 and Section B)have been deleted. Annex II has been substituted withan updated list of critical financial infrastructure entitiesexempted from CME.Further, Paragraph 100 of the CB CRM Directions has beenmodified to clarify exemption from CME ceilings in cases ofconversion of debt into equity under restructuring orinsolvency resolution processes, subject to compliance withSection 19(2) of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 .The CB CRM Amendment Directions shall come into forcefrom the date a bank decides to implement the provisions ofthe Reserve Bank of India (Commercial Banks - CreditFacilities) Amendment Directions, 2026, or from April 1,2026, whichever is earlier.DSK Views: The CB CRM Amendment Directionscomprehensively recalibrate the capital market exposureframework by redefining the scope of CME, rationalisingexclusions, tightening prudential ceilings and introducingrefined computation norms, thereby aligning concentrationrisk management with the revised credit facilities frameworkand strengthening prudential oversight of banks’ capitalmarket exposures.Read moreRESERVE BANK OF INDIA (NON-BANKING FINANCIALCOMPANIES - INCOME RECOGNITION, ASSETCLASSIFICATION AND PROVISIONING) AMENDMENTDIRECTIONS, 2026The RBI has issued the Reserve Bank of India (Non-BankingFinancial Companies - Income Recognition, AssetClassification and Provisioning) Amendment Directions,2026 vide circular bearing no. RBI/2025-26/210 datedFebruary 13, 2026 (“NBFC IRACP Amendment Directions”).The NBFC IRACP Amendment Directions amends the ReserveBank of India (Non-Banking Financial Companies - IncomeRecognition, Asset Classification and Provisioning)Directions, 2025 (“NBFC IRACP Directions”).The NBFC IRACP Amendments Directions notes that DefaultLoss Guarantee (“DLG”) arrangements, which are otherwisetreated as ‘synthetic securitisation’ and prohibited, werepermitted in a limited manner for digital lending vide circularissued by RBI dated June 08, 2023. To ensure consistency inthe application of prudential principles, and in exercise of thepowers conferred under Chapter III-B of the Reserve Bank ofIndia Act, 1934, and other enabling provisions, the RBI hasissued the NBFC IRACP Amendments Directions.Pursuant to the NBFC IRACP Amendments Directions, newparagraphs 36A, 36B and 36C have been inserted whichincludes the following: -• Paragraph 36A provides that for loan portfolios coveredby DLG arrangements in terms of Chapter III of theReserve Bank of India (Non-Banking FinancialCompanies - Credit Facilities) Directions, 2025 and PartB of the Reserve Bank of India (Non-Banking FinancialCompanies - Transfer and Distribution of Credit Risk)Directions, 2025 (both dated November 28, 2025), anNBFC may consider the DLG for determining provisionsunder the Expected Credit Loss (“ECL”) frameworkacross all stages, subject to the requirements laid downunder Indian Accounting Standards. Such requirementsinclude that the DLG arrangement must be integral tothe contractual terms of the loan and must not berecognised separately.• Paragraph 36B mandates that an NBFC shall comply withthe disclosure requirements prescribed under IndianAccounting Standard 1 (“IndAS 1”).• Paragraph 36C provides that upon every event ofinvocation of DLG, since the DLG cover reduces to theextent of invocation, the NBFC shall recompute its ECLprovisioning requirements across stages after dulyadjusting for the reduced DLG cover.DSK Views: The NBFC IRACP Amendment Directionsintroduce clarity on the prudential treatment of DLG-backedportfolios under the ECL framework by aligning provisioningtreatment with IndAS 1 and ensuring dynamic recalibrationof provisioning upon invocation of guarantees, therebyreinforcing consistency in prudential application across nonbanking financial companies.Read more40KEY JUDGEMENTSB. PRASHANTH HEGDE V. STATE BANK OF INDIA & ANR.(CIVIL APPEAL NO. 477 OF 2022) (SUPREME COURT)In this matter, State Bank of India ("SBI” or “Respondent”),acting on behalf of a consortium of banks, had filed a Section7 application under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code,2016 ("IBC" or “Code”) against M/s Metal Closure PrivateLimited ("Corporate Debtor"). The dispute primarilyconcerned with the issue that whether the Section 7application was filed within the prescribed limitation period,given the timeline of the Corporate Debtor’s NonPerforming Asset (“NPA”) classification, subsequent debtrestructuring and acknowledgments of debt in its balancesheets.Aggrieved by the order dated December 17, 2021 passed bythe Hon’ble National Company Law Appellate Tribunal,Principal Bench (“NCLAT”) wherein the appeal filed by thesuspended Managing Director against the initiation ofcorporation insolvency resolution process (“CIRP”) wasdismissed, the Appellant had filed an appeal under Section62 of IBC before the Hon’ble Supreme Court against theaforesaid order dated December 17, 2021 of the NCLAT.The Hon’ble Supreme Court dealt with the following issues:• Whether the Section 7 application lacked essentialmaterial particulars regarding the debt and thespecific date of default;• Whether the application was filed within the periodof limitation; and• Whether the insolvency proceedings were initiatedfor an "oblique purpose”, in view of the recoveryproceedings pending before various judicial fora andtherefore, ought not to have been admitted.With regards to the first issue, the Hon’ble Supreme Courtobserved that as long as the application is substantially inconformity with the particulars of prescribed form andprovides relevant information to substantiate theingredients of Section 7 application which inter-alia consistsof particulars of financial debt, records and evidence ofdefault, then such application is not liable to be rejected.The Hon’ble Supreme Court further observed that the dateof default is an important factor for determination of thelimitation period, and placed reliance on the landmarkjudgment of Dena Bank v. C. Shivakumar Raddy and Anr.,(2021) 10 SCC 330, to hold that the adjudicating authorityunder IBC has the power to allow rectification of applicationand accept documents beyond the timelines prescribedunder the Code and therefore, the argument that the initialpetition only provided for the date of NPA classification andnot the exact date of default was misconceived as theamended Section 7 application filed by SBI was accepted onrecord. Further, the amended Section 7 application gavematerial particulars about how the debt was restructured,fresh working capital consortium agreements were enteredinto and Corporate Debtor had acknowledged its liabilitywithin the balance sheet, thereby giving the debt a ‘freshlease of life’ and thereby, extended the limitation period forsuch liability/debt by way of acknowledgement.Regarding the second issue, the Hon’ble Supreme Courtobserved that the Section 7 application filed on April 25,2018 was within the period of limitation as CorporateDebtor’s balance sheet for financial year 2013-14 and 2014-2015 reflected the outstanding liability and therefore, therewas an acknowledgment of debt within the limitation periodfor the purposes of Section 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963.Additionally, it established the principle that limitation is notdeterminable from a bank's NPA classification date and is nota factor determining the starting point of limitation in theevent the debts are restructured and acknowledged in newworking capital agreements availed by the CorporateDebtor. The Hon’ble Supreme Court clarified that under41Section 18 of the Limitation Act, acknowledgments in thefinancial statements and execution of restructuringagreements resulted in extending the limitation period andaccordingly, new dates of default became relevant asstarting point for computing limitation.On the issue of whether the Section 7 application was filedwith an ‘oblique purpose’, the Hon’ble Supreme Court ruledthat the pendency of recovery suits, counterclaims, orcriminal proceedings does not bar a financial creditor frominitiating insolvency proceedings under the IBC.DSK View: The judgment reinforces the position that the dateof default is an important factor considering the implicationof limitation period in cases where debts are restructured,the limitation period does not commence from date ofclassification of the account as non-performing asset, andthe limitation period would be extended byacknowledgement of debt in the books of accounts of acorporate debtor.POWER TRUST (PROMOTER OF HIRANMAYE ENERGYLIMITED) V. BHUVAN MADAN (INTERIM RESOLUTIONPROFESSIONAL OF HIRANMAYE ENERGY LIMITED) & ORS.(CIVIL APPEAL NO .2211/2024) (SUPREME COURT)Power Trust (“Appellant”) challenged the order passed bythe Hon’ble National Company Law Appellate Tribunal(“NCLAT”) upholding the admission of a Section 7 applicationfiled by REC Limited against Hiranmaye Energy Limited(“Corporate Debtor”) and initiation of the corporateinsolvency resolution process (“CIRP”).In this matter, various term loans were extended to theCorporate Debtor under a common loan agreement forsetting up a thermal power plant. Upon alleged default, theloan account was classified as a non-performing asset onJune 30, 2018. Thereafter, restructuring proposals wereapproved by the financial creditor, subject to fulfilment ofcertain pre-implementation conditions, including inter-aliaobtaining a favourable tariff order, creation of a debt servicereserve account (DSRA) and meeting specified financial andoperational benchmarks.The Corporate Debtor failed to fulfil the pre-implementationconditions within the stipulated timeline. Consequently, thefinancial creditor filed a Section 7 application under theprovisions of the IBC, 2016 recording the date of default asMarch 31, 2018. The application was admitted by theNational Company Law Tribunal by order dated January 2,2024 and upheld by the NCLAT by order dated January 25,2024.Aggrieved, the promoter challenged the initiation of thecorporate insolvency resolution process before the Hon’bleSupreme Court, inter-alia contending that the proceedingswere barred under Section 10A and that the restructuringproposals had novated the original loan agreement and thatthe Corporate Debtor was a viable and running concern, andthat the adjudicating authority ought not to have admittedthe Section 7 application without assessing the viability ofthe Corporate Debtor in view of the judgment passed in‘Vidarbha Industries Power Limited v. Axis Bank Limited, CivilAppeal No. 4633 of 2021’.With regard to Section 10A of IBC, the Hon’ble SupremeCourt held that the plea was misconceived. The date ofdefault recorded in the Section 7 application was March 31,2018, prior to the period covered under Section 10A of IBC.The Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that even if therestructuring proposals were considered, the first instalmentunder the second restructuring proposal fell due beyond thetime period stipulated under Section 10A of IBC. Further, therestructuring proposals had not fructified into validagreements as the pre-implementation conditions were notfulfilled. Accordingly, the date of default related back toMarch 10, 2018 and the application was not barred underSection 10A of the IBC since Section 10A does not bar anyinitiation of corporate insolvency resolution process fordefaults committed prior to March 25, 2020.On the issue of novation, the Hon’ble Supreme Court heldthat the restructuring proposals were underpinned on preimplementation conditions which were not complied with.Receipt of part payment amounts neither amounted toacceptance of the restructuring proposals nor did it novatethe original loan agreement. Such payments also did notconstitute full satisfaction of the existing debt so as to renderthe Section 7 application inadmissible.On the scope of admission under Section 7, the Hon’bleSupreme Court reiterated the ratio in Innoventive IndustriesLimited v. ICICI Bank, Civil Appeal Nos. 8337-8338 of 2017,and M. Suresh Kumar Reddy v. Canara Bank, Civil Appeal No.7121 of 2022 and held that adjudicating authority is onlyrequired to ascertain the existence of a financial debt anddefault. The inability of a corporate debtor to pay its debt orits overall business viability is not to be examined at theadmission stage.The Hon’ble Supreme Court reiterated that the adjudicatingauthority is not required to go into the inability of acorporate debtor to pay its debt. This is a clear departurefrom the scheme of winding up envisaged under Section433(e) of the erstwhile Companies Act, 1956 which requiredthe adjudicating authority to come to a finding with regardto the inability of the corporate debtor to pay the debt andthereby arrive at a requisite satisfaction whether it is just andequitable to wind up the corporate debtor.The IBC restricts the scope of enquiry for admission of aninsolvency process by a financial creditor merely to theexistence of default of a debt due and payable and nothingmore.42The observations in ‘Vidarbha Industries Power Limited v.Axis Bank Limited’ were held to be confined and specific onlyto the facts of that case and do not operate as bindingprecedent contrary to ‘Innoventive Industries Limited v. ICICIBank’. On facts, the Hon’ble Supreme Court noted that theoutstanding liability far exceeded the amounts relied uponby the Appellant to demonstrate viability.DSK View: The judgment reiterates that the scope of enquiryat the stage of admission of a Section 7 application isconfined to the existence of a financial debt and default andthe Adjudicating Authority is not required to examine theviability or ongoing prospects of the corporate debtor foradmission or rejection of a Section 7 application, andobservations in ‘Vidarbha Industries Power Limited v. AxisBank Limited’ were held to be confined and specific only tothe facts of that case and do not operate as bindingprecedent contrary to Innoventive Industries Limited v. ICICIBank.PRAGITI CONSTRUCTION V. COMMITTEE OF CREDITORS OFRANCOM HEALTHCARE PVT. LIMITED AND ANR.,)(COMPANY APPEAL (AT) (INS.) NOS. 2330 AND 2331 OF2024) (NCLAT)Certain appeals were preferred before the Hon’ble NationalCompany Law Appellate Tribunal, Principal Bench (“NCLAT”)against the order dated November 12, 2024 passed by theHon’ble National Company Law Tribunal, Allahabad bench(“NCLT”) wherein the application filed by PragitiConstruction (“Appellant”), seeking consideration of itsresolution plan was rejected, and the resolution plansubmitted by the operational creditor i.e., M/s MahavirMedicare (“Operational Creditor”) was approved by theHon’ble NCLT.In this matter, the Operational Creditor had filed a Section 9application against Rancom Healthcare Private Limited(“Corporate Debtor”) for initiating corporate insolvencyresolution process (“CIRP”). Accordingly, the Hon’ble NCLTvide its order dated December 21, 2023 admitted the Section9 application filed by the Operational Creditor and initiatedCIRP against the Corporate Debtor. In this case, theOperational Creditor became the sole member of thecommittee of creditors (“CoC”) as there were no otherfinancial or operational creditors of the Corporate Debtorwho had submitted their claims pursuant to the publicannouncement and accordingly, the Operational Creditorwas vested with 100% (one hundred percent) of the votingrights in the committee of creditors of the Corporate Debtor.Further, the resolution professional of the Corporate Debtorhad invited expression of interest for acquiring theCorporate Debtor on a going concern basis under CIRP andthe Appellant as well as the Operational Creditor weredeclared eligible to submit the resolution plans. However,the Appellant could not file the resolution plan within theprescribed timeline and made a request to consider its planwhich was rejected by the CoC on the ground that the timefor submission has expired. Aggrieved by the same, theAppellant challenged the same before Hon’ble NCLT whereinthe Hon’ble NCLT directed the resolution profession to placeand consider the Appellant’s resolution plan.However, in the sixth meeting of the CoC, despite theAppellant’s plan offering a better value, the CoC rejected thesame without assigning reasons, and did not undertake acomparative analysis of the value and terms of the plansubmitted by the Appellant and that of the OperationalCreditor, and proceeded to approve the plan of theOperational Creditor, and the Hon’ble NCLT vide order datedNovember 12, 2024 rejected the contentions of theAppellant and approved the Resolution Plan submitted bythe Operational Creditor without undertaking a comparativeevaluation of two plans.The Appellant challenged the approval before the Hon’bleNCLAT, contending that permitting a sole CoC member beingan operational creditor, to approve its own resolution planamounted to acting as both decision-maker and beneficiary,thereby creating a clear conflict of interest and underminingthe value maximization objective of the IBC. The Appellantalso argued that the rejection of the Appellant’s ResolutionPlan is arbitrary and based on extraneous considerations andthat the CoC failed to exercise its commercial wisdom inconformity with the objectives of the IBC, includingmaximisation of value. Further, the reasons cited forrejection of the Appellant’s Resolution Plan, namely sectorincompatibility and apprehension of time loss, are unknownto law and unsupported by the Code. Also, the Appellantargued that the Resolution Plan of the Appellant offered tentimes the amount to the Operational Creditor as comparedto the competing plan, and the total plan value was also tentimes higher. The Appellant proceeded to argue that theconduct of the CoC lacks transparency, is not reasoned, doesnot show arm’s length independence from the ResolutionProfessional, and is malafide exercise of commercialwisdom. Such decisions of the CoC were not supported byreasoned data or objective evaluation, and that the entireprocess has resulted in gross prejudice and denial of a fairopportunity. The Appellant also argued that the ‘Code ofConduct for the Committee of Creditors’ issued by theInsolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India vide Guidelines forCommittee of Creditors dated 06.08.2024 mandatesintegrity, objectivity, professional competence, due care,transparency, and fair reasoning in decision-making, andthat the CoC in the present case is in clear violation of thesebinding norms, as decisions were unsupported by reasoneddata or objective evaluation.The core issue in this matter was whether the statutoryframework allows such a creditor to simultaneously functionas a member of the CoC and the successful resolution43applicant without violating the fundamental scheme of theCode.The Hon’ble NCLAT had set aside the resolution planapproval, declaring the process void-ab-initio for violatingthe provisions of Section 30(5) of the IBC. As per the saidsection, a resolution applicant shall not have voting rightswith respect to voting on the plans unless such resolutionapplicant is also a financial creditor. However, thisexception was only extended to the financial creditor andtherefore, the act of the Operational Creditor to vote on itsown plan would defeat the spirit and purpose of theaforementioned section and the question of commercialwisdom of CoC cannot be read into such situations.Therefore, permitting any resolution applicant, who is not afinancial creditor, to vote on and approve its resolution planamounts to “material irregularity in the decision-makingprocess”.The Hon’ble NCLAT further directed that an operationalcreditor is strictly barred from voting on its own resolutionplan as Section 30(5) of the Code seeks to separate the roleof a resolution applicant from the decision maker.The Hon’ble NCLAT also opined that the ResolutionProfessional on its part did not carry out proper evaluationof the Appellant’s plan and did not prepare or place anyevaluation matrix before the CoC, as required underRegulation 39 of the CIRP Regulations, and that the minutesof the meeting do not show any analysis of relative merits ofthe Appellant’s plan and the plan submitted by theOperational Creditor. Further, relevant information relatingto avoidance and fraudulent transaction proceedings werenot shared with the Appellant, even though suchinformation was relevant for a fair assessment of theResolution Plan, and the voting process was also notconducted fairly, as both Resolution Plans were not placedfor consideration and voting at the same time.The Hon’ble NCLAT also opined that the supremacy ofcommercial wisdom cannot be extended to shield a processthat is fundamentally flawed due to conflict of interest,violation of Section 30(5) of the Code and absence ofprocedural safeguards, and therefore, the present case,stands on a distinct footing from the usual cases wheredeference is shown to CoC decisions taken by a bodycomprising multiple financial / operational creditors. TheHon’ble NCLAT also opined that by rejecting a plan that isoffering twenty times more value than the plan submitted byOperational Creditor without assigning any reason, impliesthat the consideration was neither meaningful nor objectiveand is a case of procedural irregularity.DSK View: In this matter, the Hon’ble NCLAT also re-iteratedthe position settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India inthe matter of Essar Steel India Ltd. v. Satish Kumar Gupta((2019) 16 SCC 479), wherein it has been authoritatively heldthat while the commercial wisdom of the Committee ofCreditors is supreme, such wisdom must be exercised infurtherance of the objectives of the Insolvency andBankruptcy Code, one of the foremost being maximization ofthe value of the assets of the Corporate Debtor, and in thepresent matter the Committee of Creditors failed to act inconformity with this core objective. The reasons advanced forrejection do not address the central requirement of valuemaximization. The arbitrary refusal to meaningfully considera substantially higher value Resolution Plan demonstratesthat the commercial wisdom in the present case was notexercised in accordance with the objectives of the Code. Thisdecision by Hon’ble NCLAT reinforces the position that onlyfinancial creditors are permitted under the Code to vote upontheir plans under Section 30(5) of the Code and reiteratesthat the supremacy of commercial wisdom cannot beextended to shield a process that is fundamentally flaweddue to conflict of interest, violation of Section 30(5) of theCode, and absence of procedural safeguards. The Hon’bleNCLAT has also directed that the Latin maxim ‘nemo judex incausa sua’ in the present matter i.e., that no person can be ajudge in his own case, is not a mere technical rule but afoundational principle intended to preserve the integrity ofadjudicatory and decision-making processes, and wouldapply to the decision-making process in case of corporateinsolvency resolution process. When the same entityproposes a Resolution Plan, evaluates competing plans,rejects them, and finally approves its own plan, the processceases to be fair, impartial, or credible. Even if actual malafides are not expressly proved, the existence of a reallikelihood of bias is sufficient to vitiate the process, and‘justice must not only be done but must also appear to havebeen done’. The Hon’ble NCLAT also proceeded to opine thata single member of the committee of creditors who happensto be also a resolution applicant would always have conflictof interest vis-a-vis another resolution applicant and thedecision taken by the committee of creditors in such caseswould be in violation of principles of natural justice. Also,where the statutory framework is silent and a clear conflictof interest emerges, both the resolution professional and theadjudicating authority are required to act as institutionalsafeguards to prevent abuse of the process, and their failureto do so in the present case has materially affected theresolution process.STATE BANK OF INDIA V. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. (CIVILAPPEAL NO. 1810 OF 2021) (SUPREME COURT)In this matter, State Bank of India and other financialinstitutions had extended financial assistance to telecomcompanies which were granted spectrum licences.The Union of India issued notices demanding one-timespectrum charges and other dues in respect of the telecomcompanies. Subsequently, insolvency proceedings wereinitiated against certain telecom licensees under theInsolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC”). During the44corporate insolvency resolution process (“CIRP”), disputesarose regarding the treatment of spectrum, the liabilitytowards adjusted gross revenue dues and whether such duesconstituted operational debt or sovereign/statutory duespayable in priority.The financial creditors challenged the position adopted bythe Union of India, inter-alia contending that spectrum,though a natural resource, was an asset in the hands of thecorporate debtor capable of being dealt with under theresolution process and that the claims of the Union of Indiaought to be treated in accordance with the waterfallmechanism under the IBC.Aggrieved by the directions issued by the National CompanyLaw Tribunal and the National Company Law AppellateTribunal in relation to the treatment of spectrum andgovernmental dues during CIRP, the matter reached theHon’ble Supreme Court for authoritative determination onthe interplay between telecom regulatory framework andthe IBC.The Hon’ble Supreme Court examined the nature ofspectrum rights held by telecom licensees undergoinginsolvency proceedings and the treatment of governmentaldues, including adjusted gross revenue dues, under the IBC.The Hon’ble Supreme Court reaffirmed that spectrum is anatural resource vested in the Union of India and cannot beowned by private entities. However, the right to usespectrum, granted under statutory licence, cannot besubjected to proceedings under Insolvency and BankruptcyCode, 2016. Therefore, the Hon’ble Supreme Court opinedthat the framework of IBC is clear in excluding assets overwhich the corporate debtor has no ownership rights, andmere recognition of spectrum licensing rights as anintangible asset by telecom service providers in their booksof accounts is not conclusive of their ownership, as it onlyrepresents control over future economic benefits. Evenassuming that licensing of spectrum rights is one among thebundle of rights, in the absence of transfer of title over thespectrum, no ownership rights are created in telecom serviceproviders either in the spectrum or in its right to use asgoverned by licensing conditions. Hence, under the IBCframework, spectrum licensing rights is not a part of the poolof assets for insolvency or liquidation.The Hon’ble Supreme Court also clarified that whileregulatory powers of the Union of India remain intact, suchpowers cannot be exercised in a manner that defeats theobjectives of the IBC or renders the resolution processunworkable.DSK View: The judgment is a significant reaffirmation of theprimacy of the IBC in matters concerning distribution ofassets during insolvency. While maintaining that spectrumremains a sovereign resource held in trust to subserve thecommon good and is a ‘material resource of the community’,the Hon’ble Supreme Court has clarified that the right to usespectrum granted under statutory licence, cannot besubjected to proceedings under Insolvency and BankruptcyCode, 2016, and insolvency proceedings cannot extend todealing with public resources which are held by theGovernment for the benefit of the public.SOMVANTI V. SURESH JAIN CRL. (M.C. 1484/2025 WITHCRL. M.C. 1536/2025, 2026) (DELHI HIGH COURT)The case involves a conflict between criminal prosecutioninitiated under Section 138 of the Negotiable InstrumentsAct, 1881 (“NI Act”) and the interim moratorium grantedunder Section 96 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code,2016 (“IBC”). The dispute originated from friendly loansadvanced by the petitioners to the respondent aggregatingINR 27,00,000/- (Indian Rupees Twenty Seven Thousand). Tosecure and eventually refund these amounts, theRespondent issued two cheques which were subsequentlydishonoured. After the respondent failed to comply withlegal demand notices, the petitioners initiated criminalcomplaints under Section 138 of the NI Act.While these criminal proceedings were pending, PunjabNational Bank initiated an insolvency resolution processagainst the respondent (acting as a personal guarantor forM/s Magppie International Limited) under Section 95 of theIBC. Consequently, the respondent sought a stay on criminalproceedings, arguing that an interim moratorium underSection 96 had commenced upon the filing of the insolvencyapplication. Subsequently, the Magistrate initially acceptedthis plea and adjourned the complaints sine die and thepetitioners challenged the order of stay passed by theMagistrate before the Hon’ble Delhi High Court.The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in its judgment dated February09, 2026 relied on the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s judgmentpassed in ‘Rakesh Bhanot v. Gurdas Agro Private Limited,Criminal Appeal No. 1607 of 2025‘ and held that the interimmoratorium under Section 96 of the Insolvency andBankruptcy Code, 2016 does not stay proceedings initiatedunder Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881,as the interim moratorium is strictly limited to civil debtrecovery.Applying the principle of noscitur a sociis, the Hon’ble DelhiHigh Court clarified that ‘any legal action’ under Section 96of the Code refers only to debt related suits, not penalactions intended to punish the dishonour of cheques.DSK View: This judgment reinforces that the provisions underthe Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 shall not be a‘protective shield’ to evade criminal consequences undermoratorium as the Hon’ble Delhi High Court effectivelydistinguished civil debt recovery from penal and criminalliability.45MAHARERA LACKS JURISDICTION ON PUZZLE PARKING ASCOMMON AREA: YUVRAJ KISAN CHAUDHARY V.NEELKANTH PALM REALTYIn the present instance, the complainants that is, YuvrajKishan Chaudhary and three other persons who are buyersof the flats and residential project of the Neelkanth PalmRealty as well as another party named the RespondentPromoter have brought forward an asset complaint beforethe Hon’ble Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority(“MahaRERA”) gazing to find out whether a puzzle carparking area is deemed a common maintenance area asstipulated by the Real Estate (Regulation and Development)Act, 2016 under the designation ofThe complainants purport to have been allotted 40 puzzlecar parking spaces in the project by the RespondentPromoter. The Respondent Promoter stated that the puzzleparking comes under the common maintenance of theproject. In addition, the complainants indicate that thepuzzle parking is located in the common basement jointlywith other ground and stacked parking lots. It is pointed outthat every 40 flat owner who has been allotted puzzleparking have contributed equally to the common areas, thebasement and other amenities just like the other membersof the society.Based on this, the complaint was established in order to seekclarity on whether puzzle car parking falls under commonarea of the project according to RERA Act. In theirsubmissions to the Authority the Respondent Promotermade it clear that puzzle car parking is in fact a commonarea. Even initially, the Hon’ble MahaRERA discussed themaintainability of the complaint. The Authority noted thatthe issue contested by the complainants in the current caseis no longer with the Respondent Promoter and any estateagent. The Authority also believed that there is no clause inthe RERA Act that gave rule making power to MahaRERA toascertain whether a given amenity is a common area orotherwise.Given the lack of the special jurisdiction in the RERA Act thatcould use the Act to provide a ruling akin to such adetermination, the Hon’ble MahaRERA did not make adecision regarding the point that the complainants brought.The Authority made it clear that in case the complainantswant such a determination, then they can do so byaddressing the relevant forum in reliance to law. In thisrespect, the complaint was dismissed based on nonmaintainability. The Hon’ble MahaRERA passed its order onthe matter on January 5, 2026.The order repeats the narrowness of the jurisdiction ofMahaRERA under the RERA Act and how the Authoritycannot take powers greater than those conferred by thestatute. The Authority may not adjudicate even in a situationwhere there seems to be no proof of disagreement.CLARIFICATION OF LIABILITY OF THE LANDOWNER INDELAY COMPENSATION LAWSUIT: SRIGANESHCHANDRASEKARAN V. UNISHIRE HOMES LLPIn a landmark decision on February 20, 2026, the SupremeCourt of India interpreted the word joint and separateliability of the landowners in real-estate development underSection 67 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, as it shouldbe supported by the provisions of RERA. The case came dueto the occurrence of the Joint Development Agreement(Ukraine JDA) where the landowners gave a general Powerof Authority (GPA) on sanctions, sale arrangements andregistrations to the developer. The developer had promisedto deliver possession within thirty-six months but took upover six years to do so which made the allottee to seekcompensation.The Court carefully reviewed the terms of JDA and the pointit made was that indemnification to landowners againstdefaults was in the case of developer only and no others. Itconsidered that the joint and several liability of thelandowners with regard to the delay compensation does notexist in all cases; the agreement must impose it to them.46Nevertheless, title-transfer guarantees continue to beestablished by the landowners. This fact-based methodemphasises that the consensus of allocation throughcontract is paramount in deciding liability and, therefore,encourages a landowner to be specific in making thecontractual decisions of indemnification and capping.This case reconciles between consumer protection andfreedom of contract and has an impact on currentMahaRERA cases. Attorneys representing landownersshould examine JDAs in terms of risk-sharing schemesbecause currently, the courts are less concerned with thepresumptive joint accountability but with express explicitwords and purpose. The ruling supports the fact thatpromoter default-related statutory protection in Sections 18and 19 of RERA is never meant to safeguard ancillarylandowner activities and encourages equal costs in thefinancing of projects. In the case of real-estate companies inPune and Nagpur, this is like assurance in area sharingmodels and encouragement to make sure that all thedocumentation is made precise to prevent unwontedexposure.CONFLICTING FORMULATIONS OF STATUS OF THELANDOWNER: COMPARATIVE RULINGS OF MAHARERAAND PATNA HIGH COURT.The issue of judicial divergence on the issue of landowner asallottee remains. An order by MahaRERA of January 10, 2025in Sunita Dayanand Bubera v. Shree Krupa Buildersconsidered a recipient of a Development Agreement (DA) tobe an allottee of Section2(d) and the right to developmentas consideration. The developer was instructed to encloseflats and cough fines in the indication of the interpretationof DA as a construction-sale contact.On the contrary, Patna High Court in M/s Nesh IndiaInfrastructure v. In a case involving landowners who receivespecific apartments without revenue sharing Savita Sah(November 12, 2024) affirmed the relevance of RERA to suchcases. The landowners were allotted to qualify as allottees;RERA disputes were held as non-arbitrable and arbitrationcould only be overridden in accordance with Section 79.Bihar RERA Regulation 6(3)- explicating the position oflandowner -applied retrospectively.These comparisons indicate its jurisdictional differences:MahaRERA is inclined towards contractual (promoter if areasharing) and in Patna towards allotments based on flats.Orders of February 2026, at least, are in line with the morestringent views in Favor of monetary consideration absence.To Maharashtra stakeholders, Bubera provides slightgrounds to hope but Patel/Vaity is an alarm of retreat. Adual-forum approach by emphasizing the adherence ofSection 13 to gain access to RERA. This patchworkencourages not to have different national guidelines, whichaffect cross-state JDAs.47SPORTSCAS DISMISSES UKRAINIAN ATHLETE’S APPEAL OVERHELMET EXPRESSION AT 2026 WINTER OLYMPICSOn 12 February 2026, the Ad-Hoc Division of the Court ofArbitration for Sport (“Court”) constituted for the 2026Winter Olympic Games dismissed an application filed by aUkrainian skeleton athlete, Vladyslav Heraskevych,(“Petitioner”) challenging the restrictions imposed on theuse of a helmet displaying images of Ukrainian athletes whohad died in the ongoing conflict. The restriction had beenenforced pursuant to the athlete expression frameworkunder the Olympic Charter and related guidelines issued bythe International Olympic Committee (IOC).The Petitioner contended that the prohibition wasdisproportionate and infringed his right to freedom ofexpression. The Court held that the IOC’s neutralityprinciples, particularly those applicable on the field of playduring official competition, were legitimate andproportionate to the objective of preserving politicalneutrality at the Olympic Games, while recognising thatalternative avenues for expression remained availableoutside the competition arena.Read moreUNION BUDGET 2026-27 PROVIDES MODEST INCREASE INSPORTS ALLOCATIONSIn the Union Budget 2026‑27 presented on February 02,2026, the allocation to the Ministry of Youth Affairs andSports was increased to ₹4,479.88 crore, marking a modestrise of around ₹685.58 crore compared with the original2025‑26 budget, despite a busy sporting calendar thatincluded the Asian and Commonwealth Games. The Budgetintroduced a first‑time grant of ₹500 crore for the sportsgoods manufacturing sector, and increased support forprogrammes such as the Khelo India initiative and the SportsAuthority of India, while allocations for anti‑doping bodiessaw reductions. Analysts described the overall increase asmoderate, noting that under‑utilisation of previousbudgetary allocations had contributed to the comparativelyrestrained rise this year.Read moreDELHI HIGH COURT UPHOLDS RECOGNITION OF INDIANPICKLEBALL ASSOCIATION AS NATIONAL SPORTSFEDERATIONIn its judgment delivered on February 10, 2026, the DelhiHigh Court (“Court”) upheld the Union Government’sdecision recognising the Indian Pickleball Association(“Respondent”) as the National Sports Federation (NSF) forpickleball in India. The writ petition had been instituted byan aggrieved association All-India Pickleball Association(“Petitioner”) challenging the legality and proceduralpropriety of the recognition granted by the Ministry of YouthAffairs and Sports. The Court held that the decision-makingprocess did not suffer from arbitrariness or mala fides andbore a rational nexus to the objective of promoting andregulating the sport at the national level, thereby decliningto interfere in exercise of its writ jurisdiction.Read moreBASKETBALL FEDERATION OF INDIA CHALLENGESANTITRUST PROBE BEFORE DELHI HIGH COURTThe Basketball Federation of India (BFI) has approached theDelhi High Court to challenge a Competition Commission ofIndia (CCI) order that directed a detailed antitrustinvestigation against it. The CCI began the probe after acomplaint by Elite Pro Basketball Private Limited, whichalleged that BFI abused its dominant position by denyingmarket access to private leagues and restricting players,referees, and coaches from taking part in unaffiliated48competitions, potentially violating Sections 3 and 4 of theCompetition Act, 2002.BFI argued that as the recognised national governing bodyfor basketball, it performs regulatory and policy-makingfunctions rather than commercial activities, and thatcompetition law should not apply to such regulatorydecisions. Senior Advocate Vaibhav Gaggar told the courtthat “a regulator cannot be regulated,” asserting that theCCI’s investigation oversteps its jurisdiction. The High Courthas issued notice to the CCI and listed the next hearing forMarch 10, where BFI’s request to stay the probe will also beconsidered.Read moreGAMINGENFORCEMENT DIRECTORATE ATTACHES ₹590 CRORE INWINZO OVERSEAS INVESTMENT CASE, RAISINGREGULATORY OVERSIGHT CONCERNS ACROSS REALMONEY GAMING SECTORIn February 2026, the Enforcement Directorate (ED)provisionally attached assets valued at approximately ₹590crore belonging to WinZO and its subsidiary as part of anongoing probe into alleged violations of the ForeignExchange Management Act, 1999 (FEMA) and relatedoverseas investment norms.The ED action stems from an investigation into theCompany’s overseas direct investments into wholly ownedsubsidiaries in the United States and Singapore, where theCompany is alleged to have engaged in real-money gamingactivities, including games such as bingo, ludo, snakes &ladders, solitaire, spades, and blackjack, under structuresthat lacked independent offices, staff, or bona fideoperations abroad, with operational control andmanagement conducted from India.Authorities contend that such overseas investmentstructures and the retention of foreign income contraveneFEMA provisions, particularly after the enactment of thePromotion and Regulation of Online Gaming Act, 2025,which effectively banned real-money gaming in India, andthat the foreign entities engaged in non-bona-fide businessactivity inconsistent with Indian regulatory requirements.Read moreUK GOVERNMENT PROPOSES BAN ON SPORTSSPONSORSHIP BY UNLICENSED GAMBLING FIRMSThe UK government has proposed barring gambling firmswithout a domestic licence from sponsoring sports teams,including Premier League clubs, citing risks to consumerssuch as inadequate financial vulnerability checks,irresponsible advertising, and weak data protection thatcould lead to fraud or identity theft. A public consultation onthe proposal is expected in spring 2026.The move follows warnings from the Gambling Commissionto clubs previously sponsored by unlicensed operator TGPEurope, whose British licence was surrendered afterinvestigations found failures in partner checks and antimoney laundering compliance. Clubs affected includedBournemouth, Fulham, Newcastle, Wolves, and thenChampionship Burnley, with letters noting potential liabilityif unlicensed operators were promoted. While clubs haveagreed to remove gambling branding from front-of-shirtpositions, sleeve sponsorships still allow logos fromunlicensed operators. Ministers highlighted that suchvisibility could drive consumers toward unregulated sites,and regulators and the Betting and Gaming Council havecalled for stronger measures to ensure only properlylicensed operators gain prominence in top-tier football.Read moreSUPREME COURT HALTS COERCIVE ACTION AGAINSTFANMADE11 AND 9STACKS PENDING GAMESKRAFTVERDICTThe Supreme Court of India has stayed coercive enforcementactions such as tax recovery or enforcement measuresagainst fantasy gaming platforms FanMade11 Fantasy SportsPvt Ltd and 9stacks while a major related case involvingGameskraft Technologies remains pending before the Court.In a recent order, the Court directed that authorities shouldnot initiate or continue coercive action on a substantial taxdemand alleged against the fantasy gaming companies untilthe Supreme Court delivers judgment in the consolidatedGameskraft matter, which is one of the most significant legalbattles for India’s online gaming and fantasy sports sector.The Gameskraft case, which has consolidated multiplepetitions by online gaming platforms, centres on whetheronline gaming and fantasy sports constitute “games of skill”and how Goods and Services Tax (GST) apply, especiallycriticisms over retrospective tax demands on the full value ofbets rather than just platform fees.Read more49MEITY INTRODUCES AMENDMENTS TO IT RULESTARGETING AI-GENERATED CONTENTThe Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology(“MeitY”) on February 10, 2026, released amendments tothe Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines andDigital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 (accessible here),introducing a targeted regulatory framework for AIgenerated and manipulated content, including deepfakevideos, synthetic audio, and other digitally altered media(“Amendments”). The amendments tighten takedowntimelines, expand intermediary due diligence obligations,and mandate technical traceability and detection measures,effectively shifting platforms from reactive contentmoderation to proactive algorithmic governance.Intermediaries are required to implement systems for earlyidentification and mitigation of harmful synthetic contentand to strengthen compliance and grievance redressalmechanisms. Collectively, the Amendments signal a movefrom intermediary neutrality toward structured algorithmicaccountability in India’s digital governance landscape.TRAI ISSUES SEVENTH AMENDMENT TOINTERCONNECTION REGULATIONS FOR ADDRESSABLESYSTEMSThe Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (“TRAI”) onFebruary 5, 2026, issued the Telecommunication(Broadcasting and Cable) Services Interconnection(Addressable Systems) (Seventh Amendment) Regulations,2026 (accessible here), following stakeholder consultationson strengthening the audit framework under theInterconnection Regulations, 2017. Stakeholders had soughtclearer audit timelines, reduced duplication of audits forDistribution Platform Operators (“DPOs”), formalincorporation of infrastructure sharing within the auditscope, and enhanced auditor accountability throughexperience-based categorisation. In response, TRAI hasintroduced defined financial-year-based audit timelines withmandatory submission by September 30 annually, permittedbroadcasters to depute representatives during audits fortransparency, and enabled broadcasters to seekclarifications from auditors through DPOs, with provision forTRAI-approved audits at the broadcaster’s cost wherediscrepancies remain unresolved. The amendment furthermakes annual audits at DPO expense optional for operatorswith fewer than 30,000 subscribers. The changes aim tostreamline audit processes, reduce redundancy, andenhance transparency, accountability, and stakeholderconfidence in the addressable systems regime.CERT-IN AND SIA-INDIA RELEASE SPACE CYBER SECURITYFRAMEWORK FOR SATCOMThe Indian Computer Emergency Response Team (“CERTIn”), under the Ministry of Electronics and InformationTechnology (“MeitY”), in collaboration with the SatComIndustry Association (“SIA-India”), on February 26, 2026,released the Cyber Security Framework and Guidelines ForSpace Including Satellite Communication (accessible here),establishing an advisory baseline for mitigating cyber risksacross India’s expanding satellite communicationsecosystem (“Guidelines”).The Guidelines address vulnerabilities arising from satelliteservices, ground infrastructure, and user terminals, and isintended to guide government agencies, satellite operators,ground station operators, and private space entities. Itidentifies key threat vectors including signal jamming,spoofing, unauthorised access, and infrastructurecompromise and prescribes layered security controls acrossthe space, ground, and communication segments, such asrobust authentication, encryption, access management, andintrusion detection mechanisms. The Guidelines furtheremphasise incident response planning, risk assessment,supply chain security, capacity building, and alignment withglobal cybersecurity standards, alongside governancemeasures such as designated security leadership andstructured training. The Guidelines seek to institutionalisecyber resilience in India’s SatCom sector and reinforce the50security and continuity of critical space-basedcommunications infrastructure.MIB NOTIFIES ACCESSIBILITY GUIDELINES FOR OTTPLATFORMSThe Ministry of Information and Broadcasting (“MIB”), onFebruary 6, 2026, notified the Guidelines for Accessibility ofContent on Platforms of Publishers of Online Curated Content(OTT Platforms) for Persons with Hearing and VisualImpairment (accessible here), establishing an accessibilityframework for digital content in line with obligations underthe Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016(“Guidelines”). The Guidelines require OTT platforms toincorporate accessibility features such as audio description,closed captioning, and Indian Sign Language interpretationto facilitate inclusive access for persons with hearing andvisual impairments.The Guidelines adopt a phased, enabling approach, requiringpublishers to provide at least one accessibility feature foreligible content, ensure compatibility with assistivetechnologies, and disclose available accessibility features atthe time of content release. Publishers are also required tosubmit periodic compliance reports to the MIB, with the firstreport due within 36 months from the date of publication ofthe Guidelines and subsequent quarterly updates thereafter.Certain categories of content, including live and short-formprogramming, are exempt in light of operational constraints.The Guidelines further provide for institutional oversightthrough a monitoring mechanism and the existing three-tiergrievance redressal framework under the InformationTechnology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital MediaEthics Code) Rules, 2021, with the objective of progressivelystrengthening accessibility standards across India’s OTTecosystem.SUPREME COURT EXAMINES DPDP-RTI CONFLICT: NOTICEISSUED, NO INTERIM STAYThe Supreme Court of India (“SC”), on February 16, 2026,issued notice (accessible here) on a batch of petitions(accessible here) challenging amendments introduced by theDigital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 to the Right toInformation Act, 2005 (“RTI Act”), particularly Section 44(3),which modifies Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act concerningdisclosure of personal information (“Amendment”). Thepetitions contend that the Amendment imposes an overlybroad restriction on disclosure of “personal information,”potentially undermining transparency and the right toinformation under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.The SC declined to grant an interim stay on the Amendment,observing that legislation should ordinarily not be stayedwithout a conclusive determination on its validity, butacknowledged that the challenge raises significantconstitutional questions concerning the balance betweenthe right to privacy and the right to information. The SCnoted that clarification may be required regarding the scopeof “personal information” under the amended provision andhas sought responses from the Union of India. Petitionershave argued that the Amendment departs from theproportionality framework articulated in CPIO v. SubhashChandra Agarwal (2019), which permitted disclosure ofpersonal information where a larger public interest justifiedit. The matter is scheduled for further hearing on March 23,2026.CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT ALLOWS USE OF PRIVATECOMMUNICATIONS IN DIVORCE PROCEEDINGSThe Chhattisgarh High Court (“High Court”), on February 11,2026, in Smt. Manjari Tiwari Dubey v. Vaibhav Dubey(WP227/158/2025) (accessible here), upheld a family court’sdecision permitting a husband to rely on call recordings andWhatsApp messages exchanged with his wife as evidence indivorce proceedings under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.The petitioner had challenged the admissibility of suchelectronic material on the ground that it was obtainedillegally and violated her fundamental right to privacy. TheHigh Court rejected this contention, holding that while theright to privacy is a fundamental right, it is not absolute andmay yield where necessary to ensure a fair trial.The High Court observed that litigating parties must beallowed a meaningful opportunity to present relevantevidence in support of their claims, particularly inmatrimonial disputes where private communications may becentral to establishing the facts. Relying on Section 14 of theFamily Courts Act, 1984, which permits family courts toreceive any evidence that is relevant notwithstanding thestrict rules of admissibility under the Indian Evidence Act, theCourt held that relevance, rather than the manner in whichthe evidence was obtained, remains the key determinant foradmissibility, subject to judicial scrutiny.51NOTICE UNDER SECTION 35(3) OF BNSS IS MANDATORYFOR OFFENCES UP TO 7 YEARS AND ARREST MUST ONLY BEMADE FOR REASONS DULY RECORDEDThe Supreme Court held that issuance of a notice underSection 35(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita,2023 (“BNSS”), requiring a person to appear before a policeofficer in cases where arrest is not warranted under Section35(1), is mandatory in respect of offences punishable withimprisonment of up to seven years. However, the Courtclarified that a police officer may still proceed to arrest,where based on a complaint, information, or suspicion, thepolice officer believes that the person has committed anoffence and that such an arrest is necessary, providedconditions stipulated under Sections 35(1)(b)(i) and (ii) aremet, and reasons for such arrest are duly recorded. Further,a person may also be arrested where a person fails to complywith a notice issued under Section 35(3) under Section 35(6).However, this is an exception, and the police officer mayproceed with arrest only if there exist sufficient materials orfactors justifying arrest, particularly where such materialswere not available at the time when the notice was originallyissued.Satyendra Kumar Antil v. CBIANTICIPATORY BAIL ONCE GRANTED DOES NOT EXPIREUPON FILING OF CHARGE-SHEET UNLESS THERE IS ACHANGE OF CIRCUMSTANCEThe Supreme Court while setting aside an order rejectinganticipatory bail, reiterated that it is a settled position of lawthat the filing of a charge sheet, the taking of cognizance, orthe issuance of summons does not, by itself, result in thetermination of the protection granted by a court. In thisregard, the Court relied on Sushila Aggarwal & Ors. v. State(NCT of Delhi) & Anr., (2020) 5 SCC, Md. Asfak Alam v. Stateof Jharkhand and Another, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 892 andSiddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra,(2011)1 SCC 694. The Court further clarified that if there is achange in circumstances, the investigating agency may seekmodification or cancellation of bail in accordance with theprovisions of the BNSS. The Court also clarified the positionwhere, after bail is granted and the investigation iscompleted, additional cognizable and non-bailable offencesare added. In such circumstances, the accused can surrenderbefore the court and seek bail for additional offences; if bailis rejected, the accused may be arrested. In a case where theaccused has already been granted bail, the investigatingagency in such a scenario, cannot arrest the accused solelybased on the addition of new offences. Instead, it mustobtain an order from the Court that granted the original bailfor effecting such an arrest.Sumit v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.MAGISTRATE MUST RECORD REASONS BASED ONEVIDENCE BEFORE COMMITTING THE CASE TO SESSIONSCOURTThe Bombay High Court held that a Magistrate who isempowered to inflict punishment up to 7 years cannotmechanically commit the case to the Court of Sessionsbecause the offence alleged against the accused prescribesa higher punishment (here it was up to life imprisonment).The Court observed that before committing the case, theMagistrate is required to form his opinion based on the factsand circumstances and the role attributed to the accused inthe offence, before concluding why the accused is to beinflicted maximum punishment. It was further observed thatunder Section 323 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973(“CrPC”) (which provides the procedure when matter shouldbe committed), it is essential for the Magistrate to discussthe evidence before formulating the opinion of guilt andcommitting the case. The Magistrate is required to follow thesame procedure as under Section 325 of CrPC, whichprovides the procedure for Magistrate to submit the case to52Chief Magistrate where Magistrate cannot pass sentencesufficiently severe.Mohammed Javed Abdul Wahab v. State of MaharashtraSC HOLDS THAT BAIL PRINCIPLES FOR HEINOUS CRIMESAPPLY EQUALLY TO SERIOUS ECONOMIC OFFENCESThe Supreme Court while setting aside the High Court’sorder granting bail in a cheating and forgery case held thatfactors such as likelihood of offences being repeated, dangerof justice being thwarted, potential threat to life and libertyof witnesses and economic well-being of the society arefactors that must necessarily be considered while grantingbail in serious economic offences. The Court observed thatthe accused in this case was a habitual offender with anumber of diverse and unconnected aliases, fake ids anddeliberate change of identity. There were multiple FIRsagainst him, which demonstrated that he was a menace tothe society. Further, the High Court had mechanicallygranted bail on parity without examining the accused’scriminal antecedents. The Court held that parity cannot beapplied alone and each accused’s role and conduct must beindependently assessed for granting bail.Rakesh Mittal v. Ajay Pal Gupta, alias Sonu Chaudhary & Anr.HC HOLDS ADDING ACCUSED UNDER SECTION 319 CRPCREQUIRES EVIDENCE CAPABLE OF LEADING TOCONVICTIONThe Bombay High Court set aside the order invoking thepower under Section 319 of the CrPC, adding the petitioneras accused in the trial. Relying upon Hardeep Singh v. Stateof Punjab & Ors., AIR 2014 SC 1400, and Hetram @ Babli v.State of Rajasthan, the Court held that the power underSection 319 CrPC is extraordinary and the standard requiredto be applied while dealing with an application under thissection is higher than the mere existence of a prima faciecase, as is required at the stage of framing of charge. TheHigh Court further held that the Court must determinewhether the evidence on record, if left unrebutted, would besufficient to lead to the conviction of the proposed accusedand record its satisfaction in those terms. If such satisfactioncannot be arrived at on the basis of the material on record,the Court is ought to refrain from exercising powers underSection 319 CrPC.Rukminibai Vishnu Karad & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra &Anr.HC HOLDS THAT A PRIVATE COMPLAINT CANNOT BERETURNED MERELY FOR WANT OF THE ACCUSED’S POSTALADDRESSThe Kerala High Court held that a Magistrate cannot returnor refuse to entertain a private complaint merely becausethe postal address of the accused is not furnished. The Courtobserved that the BNSS permits complaints even againstunknown persons and does not prescribe the furnishing of apostal address as a condition precedent for filing acomplaint. It noted that in cyber offences, offenders oftenoperate through operate under pseudonymous or partiallydisclosed identities, making it impossible to locate theirpostal addresses and insisting for postal address at thethreshold would leave the victim remediless.Anagh v. State of Kerala & [email protected] Legalwww.dsklegal.com
