The Supreme Court of India’s recent judgment on August 11, 2026, in the case of Securities and Exchange Board of India v. Rajeev Vasant Sheth, commonly referred to as the “Tara Jewels Judgment,” has made significant strides in clarifying the enforcement of insider trading laws. To fully comprehend its implications, it is vital to revisit a related decision from September 2022 concerning Abhijit Rajan.
Abhijit Rajan, as chairman of Gammon Infrastructure Projects Limited, was involved in a notable case where he sold a substantial block of shares in August 2013. This sale occurred shortly before GIPL announced the termination of two shareholder agreements with Simplex Infrastructure. The Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) originally deemed this a classic case of insider trading, arguing that Rajan executed trades while in possession of unpublished price-sensitive information (UPSI). However, the Securities Appellate Tribunal (SAT) overturned SEBI’s order, citing that Rajan used the sale proceeds to meet a debt restructuring obligation, thus lacking a motive for profit.
Upon appeal, the Supreme Court upheld SAT’s decision, emphasizing that the absence of a profit motive is crucial in insider trading cases. The Court observed that, given the termination of the contracts, GIPL’s share price was expected to rise, suggesting that a rational profiteer would have waited for the increase before selling. Rajan’s decision to sell instead of waiting indicated a lack of profit motive, which the Court accepted as a valid defense.
This decision introduced two vital jurisprudential concepts: assessing the “why” behind a trade and ensuring the nature of the trade aligns with the information at hand. Specifically, possessing positive non-public information should lead to a purchase, while negative information should prompt a sale.
However, neither the 1992 Regulations, which applied to Rajan’s case, nor the 2015 Regulations, relevant to Tara Jewels, explicitly require authorities to consider motive or necessity in insider trading cases. Under Regulation 4 of the 2015 Regulations, the offense is primarily defined by possession and trading, rather than the subjective intentions or post-trade justifications of the insider.
The Supreme Court’s decision in 2022 fundamentally altered this discourse by introducing a nuanced perspective that goes beyond mere possession. It advocated for a subjective, case-specific assessment before charging insider trading, acknowledging the complex nature of knowledge attribution in such regulations.
The Tara Jewels Judgment, however, marks a shift. The case involved the company’s chairman and promoters selling shares during financial distress to raise funds for operational expenses. SAT initially applied the Abhijit Rajan logic, finding no intention to profit, and thus, no insider trading violation. However, the Supreme Court reversed SAT’s decision, emphasizing that the 2015 Regulations do not permit inquiry into state of mind or motive.
The Court referenced Regulation 4(1), which states that a person trading while in possession of UPSI is presumed to be motivated by that information, irrespective of the trade’s purpose. This presumption can only be rebutted by demonstrating specific exonerating circumstances listed in the regulation.
More Read
The Supreme Court clarified that the motives behind the use of trade proceeds, such as debt repayment, are irrelevant. The focus remains solely on possession and trade. This judgment effectively nullifies the corporate purpose defense previously considered in insider trading cases.
While the principles from the Abhijit Rajan case are not entirely dismissed, their significance has been considerably reduced. The primary focus now lies on the alignment of the information with the trade’s nature, maintaining its relevance as a valid legal consideration.
