Regulating the regulators: Assessing regulation-making frameworks in India's financial sector

by Natasha Aggarwal and Renuka Sane.

Indian regulators, like the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) and the Reserve Bank of India (RBI), routinely wield quasi-legislative powers. For example, Section 30 of the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 empowers the SEBI Board to make regulations. According to its 2024-25 annual report, SEBI issued 104 consultation papers, 61 amendments to its regulations, one new set of regulations, 14 master circulars, and 154 "policy measures." Such regulatory interventions can significantly influence markets and affect economic outcomes. Yet the processes by which regulators design, consult on, and review delegated legislation have been fragmented and, in large part, left to each regulator's discretion.

Traditional safeguards on delegated legislation in India, i.e., parent statutes requiring regulations to be laid before Parliament, prior publication requirements under the General Clauses Act, 1897, and judicial review, provide important accountability functions, but do not regulate the internal process by which a regulator formulates its regulations. They do not require a regulator to identify the problem warranting intervention, weigh alternatives, or assess costs and benefits.

In 2013, the Financial Sector Legislative Reforms Commission proposed provisions to govern regulation-making and, through the Financial Sector Development Council Resolution of 24 October 2013, financial sector regulators agreed to comply with these procedures. Since then, six financial sector regulators (the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority of India (IRDAI), Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (IBBI), International Financial Services Centres Authority (IFSCA), Pension Fund Regulatory and Development Authority (PFRDA), SEBI and RBI) have each adopted some form of instrument governing how they make regulations, ranging from non-binding concept notes to regulations. More recently, the Economic Survey (2024-25) recommended strengthening regulatory impact assessment; the Securities Markets Code, 2025 proposes statutorily mandating public consultation and periodic review at SEBI; and in March 2026 the Standing Committee on Finance recommended a mandatory regulatory impact assessment framework for the IBBI.

In this backdrop, our paper, 'Regulating the regulators: Assessing regulation-making frameworks in India's financial sector', evaluates the regulation-making frameworks adopted by these six regulators against three principles of good regulation-making - consultation, evidence-based regulation-making, and periodic review - and then assesses a randomly selected 2025 consultation paper issued by each regulator against indicators derived from these principles and from each regulator's own framework.

We find that while all six financial regulators have adopted some form of instrument, these instruments vary considerably in legal form, substantive scope, and analytical ambition. Regulators operating under more demanding frameworks are more likely to clearly identify the regulatory problem in their consultation documents. However, this relationship is not linear: stronger frameworks do not consistently produce stronger performance on more analytically demanding requirements. No regulator, including those whose frameworks expressly require it, included a cost-benefit analysis in its consultation paper, and no regulator assessed available alternatives to direct regulation. Every regulator failed to comply with at least one of its own procedural requirements.

Indian legal frameworks

From 2016 onwards, Indian regulators have progressively formalised how they make their own regulations: IRDAI led the way with a concept note in 2016, followed by IBBI in 2018, IFSCA in 2021, and PFRDA in 2024. In 2025, IFSCA issued an updated and expanded framework for making regulations and subsidiary instructions, SEBI adopted regulations for making, amending, and reviewing regulations, and RBI opted for a non-binding policy framework rather than enforceable regulations.

While all regulators now subject regulation-making to some framework, they diverge along two axes: legal form and substantive scope. On legal form, IBBI, PFRDA, IFSCA, and SEBI have adopted regulations, signalling a commitment to enforceable constraints; RBI and IRDAI, by contrast, have adopted non-binding approaches, suggesting either a desire to retain discretion or a reluctance to subject internal processes to enforceable standards. On scope, PFRDA's framework is narrowly confined to the making of regulations; IBBI, SEBI and IRDAI expand this to include amendments; IFSCA moves further by bringing "subsidiary instructions" within its fold; and RBI adopts the broadest scope, extending its framework to directions, guidelines, notifications, and other instruments. In this context, IFSCA stands out as the strongest: it uses binding regulations, rather than non-binding frameworks, to govern its regulation-making process, and their applicability extends beyond regulations and amendments to subsidiary instructions.

On consultation specifically, most regulators (IRDAI, IFSCA, SEBI, RBI and IBBI) make public consultation mandatory, typically for a minimum of 21 days; PFRDA alone makes it optional, albeit with a longer 30-day window. IRDAI, IFSCA, IBBI and PFRDA publish stakeholder comments and provide responses to them, while SEBI and RBI provide responses but do not publish comments, limiting external visibility into the range of views considered.

On evidence-based regulation-making, the picture is fragmented: IRDAI and IFSCA require both a problem statement and a statement of regulatory intent; SEBI requires only regulatory intent; PFRDA and IBBI require a problem statement but not regulatory intent. Only RBI's framework requires an impact assessment, and only PFRDA and IBBI mandate cost-benefit analysis.

On periodic review, IBBI has the most frequent cycle (three years), followed by IFSCA (five years) and RBI (five to seven years); SEBI and PFRDA require review but specify no timeline, and IRDAI's concept note is silent on review altogether.

Evaluation of consultation papers

We evaluated one randomly selected 2025 consultation paper (for IRDAI, an exposure draft) issued by each regulator, against indicators drawn from the principles of good regulation-making and from each regulator's own framework. Notably, the RBI did not issue a formal consultation paper in the relevant period; the document evaluated for RBI is a circular proposing amendments to its directions, reflecting a broader pattern of the RBI using directions and circulars to make substantive regulatory changes.

The IRDAI Exposure Draft states the objective of its proposal and describes the key features of the framework, but does not clearly explain the problem it seeks to address, does not consider alternative approaches to regulation, and does not include a cost-benefit or impact analysis.

The IBBI Discussion Paper, for each of its three proposals, includes a statement of the problem, a proposed solution, and the draft regulation, but does not identify and assess available alternatives to direct regulation, does not include a cost-benefit analysis, and does not comply with the IBBI Regulations' requirement of an economic analysis, guidance from international standard-setting bodies, or the statutory provision enabling the proposed regulations.

The IFSCA Consultation Paper does not comply with any of the principles of good regulation-making, other than relying on market data as evidence of growth; it refers to fund management entities facing unspecified "operational hassles" without elaborating on what these are, and does not specify the statutory provision enabling the amendments or include guidance from international standard-setting bodies, both required under its own regulations.

The PFRDA Consultation Paper performs comparatively better: it identifies the problem to be addressed, assesses how existing frameworks contribute to the problem, and relies on evidence. However, it does not identify and assess available alternatives to direct regulation or include a cost-benefit analysis, and does not comply with several of its own regulations; it does not specify the statutory provision enabling the proposed regulations, attach a draft of the proposed regulations, include the required economic analysis, include guidance from international standard-setting bodies, or specify the manner of implementation.

The SEBI Consultation Paper does not comply with any of the principles of good regulation-making other than identifying the problem to be addressed; it does not assess how existing regulations contribute to the problem, identify alternatives, or include a cost-benefit analysis, an outcome that closely mirrors the design of SEBI's own framework, which requires only a statement of regulatory intent.

The RBI Circular likewise does not comply with any of the principles other than a rather broad articulation of the problem, and does not comply with the RBI Policy because it does not specify the statutory provision enabling the proposed regulations, or include an impact analysis or guidance from international standard-setting bodies.

Analysis

The results reveal a gap between the formal existence of regulation-making frameworks and their actual operationalisation in consultation documents. There are failures at two levels: compliance with general principles of good regulation-making and compliance with each regulator's own procedural requirements.

More broadly, regulators operating under more developed procedural frameworks, particularly IBBI and PFRDA, which explicitly require problem identification, perform better on basic problem-definition indicators. Both clearly identify the regulatory problem, and PFRDA goes further by examining whether existing regulations contribute to it. In contrast, SEBI and RBI, whose frameworks impose minimal analytical obligations, produce consultation documents that are largely limited to statements of regulatory intent, with little substantive justification. Second, there is inconsistent articulation of the regulatory problem, even at a basic level. While some regulators - such as IBBI, PFRDA, SEBI, and RBI - identify a problem, others (notably IRDAI and IFSCA) fail to do so clearly. Even where a problem is identified, it is often thinly specified and not linked to evidence or to failures in the existing regulatory framework.

However, stronger frameworks do not necessarily translate into stronger performance on more analytically demanding requirements. Despite formal mandates, both IBBI and PFRDA fail to include the economic analysis required by their own regulations. IBBI omits cost benefit analysis, while PFRDA fails to provide economic analysis, draft regulations, international benchmarking, and implementation details. No regulator assesses alternatives to direct regulation or conducts a cost benefit analysis. The absence is uniform and not explained by framework design alone: even regulators whose own frameworks require economic analysis (IBBI, PFRDA, and RBI) fail to provide it. Their universal absence suggests that regulators do not treat regulation as one option among many, but as the default response. As a result, consultation processes are narrowed: stakeholders are invited to comment on how to regulate, but not whether regulation is justified in the first place. This significantly weakens accountability and the quality of regulation-making.

Moreover, every regulator, without exception, fails to comply with at least one of its own procedural requirements. The most consistent gap is the failure to specify the statutory provision enabling the proposed regulation - a basic transparency requirement met only by IRDAI. This omission raises concerns about the legal legitimacy of the proposed regulation, as stakeholders are not informed of the source of regulatory authority. IBBI omits the economic analysis mandated by its framework. PFRDA fails to include draft regulations, economic analysis, implementation guidance, and international benchmarks. IFSCA omits both the problem statement and international benchmarks required under its framework. RBI, similarly, does not provide the impact analysis or international benchmarking contemplated by its policy. These are not merely formal deficiencies. The absence of draft regulatory text, as in the case of PFRDA, prevents stakeholders from engaging with the legal substance of the proposal, limiting consultation to broad regulatory intent. The absence of economic or impact analysis means that the regulatory choice cannot be independently assessed.

Across all six regulators, consultation papers ostensibly function as instruments for presenting pre-determined regulatory proposals, rather than as vehicles for reasoned, evidence-based decision-making.

Reforms

We propose five reforms: (i) legislative amendments to parent statutes that clearly define the scope of regulators' quasi-legislative powers and the processes governing their exercise; (ii) regulatory impact assessment should be made mandatory and comprehensive; all consultation papers should be required to identify the problem or market failure to be addressed, assess whether existing regulations contribute to it, consider available alternatives including non-intervention, and include a cost-benefit analysis; (iii) constituting Regulations Advisory Committees of domain experts, legal scholars and market participants at all regulators; (iv) requiring periodic review of regulations at defined intervals with a clear methodology specifying which regulations are to be reviewed, against what criteria, and within what timeframe; and (v) leveraging technology (for instance, dashboards tracking active consultations and regulators' responses, and automated tools that flag missing elements in consultation papers before publication).

The authors are researchers at TrustBridge Rule of Law Foundation.