Securities, Competition and Economic Laws
This chapter covers five separate regulatory regimes — securities, competition, foreign exchange, anti-money-laundering, and consumer protection — each administered by a different regulator, and each examined here at the level of its basic structure and a handful of current, precise numeric thresholds rather than full statutory depth.
1. SEBI and the securities market
The Securities and Exchange Board of India became a statutory regulator in 1992 under the SEBI Act, 1992, empowered to protect investors, and to regulate and develop the securities market — a mandate that in practice covers everything from stock-exchange oversight and public-issue regulation to mutual funds, insider trading and takeover regulation.
Most of that detailed mandate is examined in CMA Final's Strategic Financial Management paper (security analysis, mutual funds, derivatives) rather than here; this chapter's focus is SEBI's existence and mandate as part of the broader economic-regulatory architecture.
2. The Competition Act, 2002
The Competition Commission of India (CCI), enforcing the Competition Act, 2002, regulates exactly three categories of conduct: anti-competitive agreements (agreements between enterprises that cause an "appreciable adverse effect on competition" — price-fixing and bid-rigging being the clearest examples), and abuse of a dominant position (a dominant enterprise using its market power to impose unfair conditions or prices, or to exclude competitors).
The third category is the regulation of combinations — mergers, amalgamations and acquisitions above specified size thresholds, which must be notified to the CCI before they can be completed.
The combination-notification thresholds changed materially in 2024, and a candidate should know both the old logic and what was added. The traditional test is asset-and-turnover based (revised upward in March 2024 to roughly ₹2,500 crore of assets or ₹7,500 crore of turnover in India, for the entities involved), with a "small target" de minimis exemption for genuinely small acquisition targets.
The Competition (Amendment) Act, 2023 added an entirely new, parallel test: a deal-value threshold of ₹2,000 crore — any transaction exceeding this value must be notified to the CCI if the target has "substantial business operations in India," regardless of whether the older asset/turnover test is met.
This deal-value test exists specifically to catch large acquisitions of high-value but asset-light or pre-revenue targets (a large technology or platform acquisition, for instance) that a purely asset/turnover-based test could otherwise miss entirely, since such targets can be acquired for very large sums while showing comparatively small assets or turnover.
3. FEMA, 1999 — current versus capital account
The Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 replaced the older Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973, and the shift between the two captures a fundamental change in philosophy: FERA was a criminal, prohibitive regime (foreign exchange dealings were presumptively illegal unless specifically permitted), while FEMA is a civil, permissive, management-oriented regime (transactions are allowed unless specifically regulated or prohibited) — reflecting India's post-1991 economic liberalisation.
FEMA's core operational distinction is between current account and capital account transactions. A current account transaction does not alter the overseas assets or liabilities of a person resident in India (or the Indian assets or liabilities of a person resident outside India) — ordinary trade, travel and remittance transactions. A capital account transaction does alter such assets or liabilities, including contingent liabilities — outward investment, external commercial borrowing, and similar transactions.
Current account transactions are generally freely permitted subject to limited restrictions, while capital account transactions are more closely regulated, since they create ongoing cross-border asset or liability exposure rather than a one-time exchange of goods, services or a remittance.
4. PMLA, 2002 and the structure of a money-laundering offence
The Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, enforced by the Enforcement Directorate (ED), is built on a specific three-part logical structure that a candidate should be able to reproduce in order. First, there must be a scheduled offence — a predicate criminal offence specifically listed in the Act's Schedule. Second, "proceeds of crime" means any property directly or indirectly derived or obtained as a result of criminal activity relating to that scheduled offence.
Third, the actual offence of money laundering consists of directly or indirectly attempting, assisting, or being a party to any process or activity connected with such proceeds of crime, and projecting or claiming it as untainted (legitimate) property. Without an underlying scheduled offence, there is no "proceeds of crime," and without proceeds of crime, there is no money-laundering offence to prosecute — the three elements are sequentially dependent, not independent grounds.
5. Consumer Protection Act, 2019 — a jurisdiction figure that has already changed once
The Consumer Protection Act, 2019 replaced the 1986 Act and set up a three-tier commission structure — District, State and National — differentiated by pecuniary jurisdiction, and this figure is worth learning carefully because it has already been revised once since the Act itself was passed.
| Commission | Jurisdiction as originally enacted (2019 Act) | Jurisdiction currently in force (2021 Rules) |
|---|---|---|
| District Commission | Up to ₹1 crore | Up to ₹50 lakh |
| State Commission | ₹1 crore to ₹10 crore | ₹50 lakh to ₹2 crore |
| National Commission | Above ₹10 crore | Above ₹2 crore |
The Consumer Protection (Jurisdiction) Rules, 2021 revised these figures downward at each tier, and it is the 2021 Rules' figures — ₹50 lakh and ₹2 crore as the two dividing lines — that are currently in force and should be used unless a question specifically asks about the position as originally enacted in 2019.
The basis of valuation also changed: under the old 1986 Act, jurisdiction was based on the value of goods/services plus compensation claimed, while under the 2019 Act's scheme, jurisdiction is based only on the value of consideration actually paid for the goods or services — a narrower base that, combined with the lower 2021 thresholds, shifted many disputes down to the District Commission tier that would previously have gone to a higher tier.
Worked Examples
Example 1. An acquirer proposes to buy a loss-making, asset-light technology start-up for ₹3,500 crore. The target's own assets and turnover fall well below the traditional asset/turnover thresholds. Does this transaction require CCI notification?
Yes — even though the traditional asset/turnover test is not met, the transaction value of ₹3,500 crore exceeds the ₹2,000 crore deal-value threshold introduced by the Competition (Amendment) Act, 2023, and if the target has substantial business operations in India, mandatory CCI notification is triggered under this parallel test.
Example 2. Classify each of the following as a current account or capital account transaction under FEMA: (a) an Indian resident paying for an overseas holiday, (b) an Indian company borrowing money from a foreign lender (external commercial borrowing).
(a) Current account transaction (a one-time remittance, no change in overseas assets/liabilities). (b) Capital account transaction (creates an ongoing foreign liability).
Example 3. A person is investigated for concealing income from an activity that is not listed as a scheduled offence under the PMLA. Can they be prosecuted for money laundering under the Act?
No — without an underlying scheduled offence, there can be no "proceeds of crime" as PMLA defines the term, and without proceeds of crime, the money-laundering offence itself cannot be established, regardless of how the income was concealed.
Example 4. A consumer's claim, based on the value of consideration paid, is worth ₹80 lakh. Which consumer commission currently has jurisdiction, applying the 2021 Rules?
The State Commission — since ₹80 lakh falls above the District Commission's current ₹50 lakh limit but within the State Commission's ₹50 lakh to ₹2 crore range.
Example 5. Explain the difference in philosophy between FERA, 1973 and FEMA, 1999.
FERA treated foreign exchange dealings as presumptively illegal unless specifically permitted — a criminal, prohibitive regime. FEMA reversed this, treating transactions as permitted unless specifically regulated or prohibited — a civil, management-oriented regime — reflecting India's shift towards economic liberalisation after 1991.
Example 6. Name the three categories of conduct the Competition Act, 2002 regulates.
Anti-competitive agreements, abuse of a dominant position, and regulation of combinations (mergers, amalgamations and acquisitions above specified thresholds).
Example 7. A consumer dispute is filed based on a claim structure that includes the price paid for a service plus a large compensation amount claimed for resulting damages. Explain why the applicable jurisdiction figure could differ depending on whether the dispute is assessed under the 1986 Act's old logic or the 2019 Act's current logic.
Under the 1986 Act, pecuniary jurisdiction was based on the value of goods/services plus the compensation claimed, which could push a claim into a higher jurisdictional tier purely because a large compensation amount was claimed on top of a modest service value.
Under the 2019 Act's scheme, jurisdiction is based only on the value of consideration actually paid for the goods or services, ignoring the compensation claimed — so the same dispute could fall into a lower tier under the current basis than it would have under the old one, even with an identical compensation claim.
Summary
SEBI (since 1992) and the CCI (under the Competition Act, 2002, regulating anti-competitive agreements, abuse of dominance and combinations) anchor India's securities and competition regulatory architecture; the 2023 Amendment's ₹2,000 crore deal-value test now catches large, asset-light acquisitions the traditional asset/turnover test could miss.
FEMA, 1999 replaced the prohibitive FERA regime with a permissive one, distinguishing current account transactions (generally freely allowed) from capital account transactions (more closely regulated, since they alter cross-border assets or liabilities), while PMLA's money-laundering offence depends sequentially on a scheduled offence existing first, then proceeds of crime arising from it, then an act of laundering those proceeds.
The Consumer Protection Act, 2019's three-tier commission structure had its pecuniary jurisdiction thresholds revised downward by the 2021 Rules (District up to ₹50 lakh, State ₹50 lakh-₹2 crore, National above ₹2 crore) and its valuation basis narrowed to consideration paid alone, both changes worth stating precisely since the original 2019 Act's own figures differ from what is currently in force.
