Yet, the surge also exposes cracks that persist beneath the surface: companies continue to falter on basic compliance, back-end resolution remains sluggish, and a new layer of risk has emerged with finfluencer-led mis-selling.
At the same time, Sebi’s enforcement arm has been flexing more muscle. Settlements have scaled up to record levels, scrutiny of advisers and pseudo-educators has intensified, and the regulator is leaning on new digital tools to keep pace with a market where retail investors are louder and expectations are higher.
Complaints surge, but why?
According to the latest annual report of Sebi, stock exchanges received 12,473 complaints against listed firms in fiscal year 2024–25, up 43% from 8,726 a year earlier. Of these, over 12,200 were resolved, with 691 pending at year-end, typically involving missed dividends, delays in corporate actions, or disputes over rights and bonus issues.
On SCORES 2.0, Sebi logged more than 68,000 complaints. Combined with CPGRAMS and SECURE, total cases were about 71,000, with just over 4,000 outstanding actionable grievances at year-end.
Rolled out in April 2024, SCORES 2.0 auto-routes complaints, imposes a 21-day ATR deadline, and allows a two-stage review with auto-escalation—shortening resolution timelines.
CPGRAMS is the Centralized Public Grievance Redress and Monitoring System, a government-run online platform for citizens to file complaints with various public authorities, while SECURE refers to a new online system being developed by Sebi specifically for investors to lodge their grievances.
Experts caution the jump reflects digitisation and awareness rather than deteriorating corporate conduct.
“The surge reflects basic compliance lapses colliding with a more empowered and vocal retail investor base,” explained Sonam Chandwani, managing partner at KS Legal & Associates.
“For instance, an investor who previously might have ignored a delayed dividend because the process of complaint was cumbersome; today, the same grievance is lodged within minutes on the portal.”
She added that operational lapses such as repeated delays in crediting bonus shares or inadequate disclosures around related party transactions continue to dominate complaints.
“While Sebi has fixed the front end of grievance capture, companies have yet to strengthen the back end of compliance and investor relations.” she said.
Kunal Sharma, founder of Taraksh Lawyers & Consultants, said, “Investors are speaking up more, but the response mechanism hasn’t yet kept pace with their expectations.” He added the friction has shifted from filing to closure as corporate back-ends lag a more responsive investor base.
Advisory ecosystem in the crosshairs
If grievance redress is Sebi’s front line of defence, its crackdown on advisers and finfluencers shows the regulator widening the battlefield. Beyond issuer lapses, Sebi has intensified action against investment advisers (IAs) and research analysts (RAs), including penalties, cancellations, and shutdown directives, while stepping up scrutiny of unregistered advisory on social media.
The campaign targets ‘education’ or ‘training’ models used to disguise advisory, with enforcement orders against select entities, including action in the Asmita Patel matter, and fresh circulars and consultations to curb live-market data use by educators and restrict promotions by unregistered entities.
Chandwani noted persistent grey zones: “Enforcement action against such actors is episodic; one entity is banned, only for several others to emerge under new names.
She argued that definitional clarity and broader coverage are needed to net disguised models. “Unless Sebi broadens its interpretation of what constitutes advice to include indirect and disguised forms, it will be akin to plugging leaks in a sinking ship,” Chandwani said.
Advanced surveillance will be pivotal, experts said.
“Sebi will need to go beyond traditional monitoring and adopt AI tools to scan social media content in real time, map referral and follower networks, and trace fee flows between influencers, platforms, and registered intermediaries. This is critical to detect hidden revenue-sharing and pseudo-advisory activity that currently slips through the cracks,” Sharma said.
The systemic risk posed by finfluencers remains a concern. “Gaps remain around enforcement speed and jurisdictional overlaps with social media platforms,” Narinder Wadhwa, MD & CEO of SKI Capital Services Ltd said.
“Influencers need to be checked, as on the pretext of advising, they are often found mis-selling or creating unrealistic expectations for retail investors,” Wadhwa added.
To channel activity into regulated pipes, Sebi has eased access for genuine entrants—relaxing qualification norms, lowering entry barriers with refundable deposits in lieu of high net-worth requirements, and centralising fee collection.
“These steps have reduced friction, especially for smaller players, while core safeguards remain unchanged so investor protection has not been diluted”, Sharma said.
Settlements scale up
Even as complaints and finfluencers test Sebi’s bandwidth, its enforcement arm has been scaling up settlements.
Applications climbed to 703 in FY25 from 434 in FY24; orders passed rose to 284 from 114; and collections jumped to about ₹799 crore from around ₹94 crore, largely due to a handful of outsized cases.
“The drastic rise in the settlement amount can be attributed to a few cases like the settlement order in the TAP matter,” Vasudha Goenka, partner at Cyril Amarchand Mangaldas observed.
TAP refers to the National Stock Exchange’s Trade Allocation Practices and related access controls examined in connection with co-location–era systems, where certain market participants allegedly gained unfair advantages.
NSE and others settled the TAP system matter with Sebi for ₹643.05 crore in October 2024, significantly boosting FY25 collections.
Looking ahead, Wadhwa said enforcement may increasingly home in on copy-trading schemes, broker–influencer referral arrangements, and courses or pseudo-educational products that mask advice.
“Ensuring quick, visible action here would send a strong deterrence signal and protect new entrants into capital markets,” he said.
The road ahead
Sharma warned the complaint curve next year could be reshaped by sophisticated, tech-driven risks: “AI-driven scams mimic official institutions, producing convincing frauds at scale. The complaint curve next year is likely to be shaped by more complex, tech-driven risks,” he said.
Chandwani expects a shift from reactive enforcement to “pre-emptive rulemaking,” with liability extending across the influencer–intermediary chain.
