SEBI says disclosure norms under constant review; Framework being strengthened

The remarks come amid heightened scrutiny of corporate governance practices at listed entities, with recent developments at InterGlobe Aviation drawing attention to disclosure standards and board oversight.

• SEBI says disclosure norms for listed firms are under review
• Regulator monitors market changes to ensure adequate disclosures
• InterGlobe Aviation faces scrutiny over board and disclosures

Did our AI summary help?

The Securities and Exchange Board of India on Monday said its disclosure framework for listed companies is under continuous review, with mechanisms in place to assess market developments and take action where necessary.

Speaking at a press conference after the board meeting, Whole-Time Member Kamlesh Varshney said the regulator is actively working to strengthen norms under the listing obligations and disclosure requirements (LODR) framework. “Regulations are in place. There is a committee already to bring improvisations across LODR,” he said.

He added that SEBI keeps a close watch on evolving market situations to ensure adequate disclosures by companies. “Whenever there is a market phenomena where disclosures need to assessed, we do scrutinise the details and take action accordingly. It isn’t like we don’t look after it,” Varshney said.

The remarks come amid heightened scrutiny of corporate governance practices at listed entities, with recent developments at InterGlobe Aviation drawing attention to disclosure standards and board oversight.

In December 2025, proxy advisory firm Stakeholders Empowerment Services (SES) had sharply criticised the airline’s board over its handling of the Flight Duty Time Limitations (FDTL) crisis that unfolded in late 2025. The disruption, triggered by the implementation of revised pilot duty norms, led to widespread flight cancellations, delays, and operational disruptions across the network.

SES questioned whether the board had adequately anticipated the impact of the new norms and whether sufficient contingency planning was in place. It also raised concerns over the timeliness and adequacy of the company’s disclosures as the crisis escalated, suggesting that investors may not have been fully informed about the extent of operational challenges in real time.

The proxy firm further flagged gaps in board oversight, particularly on risk assessment and crisis preparedness, and questioned whether independent directors had exercised sufficient diligence in reviewing management actions during the period.