Section 195: Prohibition on insider trading of securities

Companies Act • Official Statutory Text & Practice Guide

Statutory Regulation
Legal Standard
Competent Court / Tribunal
Act 2013
Statutory Defined Terms in this Section: (Click any term for official legal definition)

Legal Commentary & Landmark Judgments: Section 195

Section 195 formerly enacted a statutory prohibition on insider trading by directors, key managerial personnel, and connected persons under company law; omitted by the Companies (Amendment) Act, 2017 to cede complete jurisdiction to SEBI's specialized insider trading regime.

  • Historical Scope of Section 195: Prohibited any person, including a director or KMP, from subscribing, buying, selling, or counseling transactions in securities while in possession of unpublished price sensitive information (UPSI).
  • Stringent Criminal Sanctions: Pre-amendment law imposed imprisonment up to five years and fines up to twenty-five crore rupees or three times the profit realized from insider trades.
  • Legislative Omission by Amendment Act of 2017: Omitted with effect from May 7, 2018, pursuant to the recommendations of the Company Law Committee to prevent jurisdictional conflict between the Ministry of Corporate Affairs and SEBI.
  • Current Regulatory Architecture: Insider trading is exclusively prosecuted by SEBI under the SEBI (PIT) Regulations, 2015 read with Sections 11, 12A, 15G, and 24 of the SEBI Act, 1992, covering both listed companies and proposed listing vehicles.
Key Landmark Precedents:
  • Chintalapati Srinivasa Raju v. SEBI, (2018) 7 SCC 443: The Supreme Court held that mere access to unpublished price sensitive information by virtue of directorship does not automatically create insider liability; actual possession and trading on the basis of UPSI must be proven.
  • SEBI v. Kishore R. Ajmera, (2016) 6 SCC 368: The Supreme Court recognized that in insider trading cases, direct evidence is rarely available and courts must rely on a cogent chain of circumstantial evidence, trading patterns, and temporal proximity to establish guilt.
Courtroom Practice & Strategic Litigation Guidance:

Counsel handling allegations of price-sensitive trading must challenge any ongoing RoC or MCA proceedings issued post-2018 for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction due to Section 195's omission. All evidentiary defenses, structured digital database (SDD) audit trails, and pre-clearance certificates must be addressed directly before the Adjudicating Officer of SEBI or the Securities Appellate Tribunal (SAT).