In Brief
The Supreme Court resolved competing interpretations of the SEBI Act's penalty framework. The Court held that factors listed in Section 15-J (disproportionate gain, investor loss, repetitive defaults) are illustrative, not exhaustive, for determining penalty quantum. Discretion under Section 15-J is not eclipsed by penalty ceilings in Sections 15-A to 15-HA; both must be harmoniously applied. The Adjudicating Officer retains broad discretion to consider all relevant circumstances when imposing penalties. The Court rejected the 2016 Roofit Industries decision and clarified that discretionary penalty determination applies across all violation types. Multiple civil appeals involving securities market violations were decided on merit, with penalties upheld where facts supported findings of market manipulation or non-compliance with SEBI regulations.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.