Sebi complaint portals face scrutiny over redirections, opaque closures

Investors say cases bounced between SCORES and MI Portal, leaving grievances unsettled

The efficiency of the Securities and Exchange Board of India’s (Sebi’s) investor complaint redress platforms — Sebi Complaints Redress System (SCORES) and the Market Intelligence (MI) Portal — has come under scrutiny, with market participants alleging that complaints are frequently redirected between the two systems or closed without substantive examination by stock exchanges or the regulator. 

SCORES and the MI Portal recently came into focus during proceedings before the Securities Appellate Tribunal (SAT) in a dispute involving Varun Beverages and Tanzania Bottling Company (TBC) SA. 

SCORES allows investors to lodge complaints related to the securities market against listed companies, Sebi-registered intermediaries, and market infrastructure institutions. The MI Portal, by contrast, is intended to provide information to Sebi regarding alleged violations of securities laws. 

TBC approached SAT after Sebi last year set aside its complaint filed on SCORES, which sought disclosures from Varun Beverages on the termination of a share purchase agreement. 

While SAT directed Sebi to re-examine the matter, it also observed that TBC’s complaint had not been considered in the “right perspective”, adding that the complaint filed on the MI Portal met a similar fate. 

Legal experts said the order underscores systemic gaps in the design and functioning of both SCORES and the MI Portal, as well as inconsistencies in Sebi’s handling of complaints. 

“In many instances, particularly cases involving non-disclosures by listed companies, such breaches are continuing in nature. They can keep adver­sely affecting investors, shareholders, and market integrity until there is timely regulatory intervention or disclosures are made, often belatedly,” said Supreme Waskar, managing par­tner at Supreme Law Part­ners, who represented TBC before SAT. 

During the current financial year (2025-26), nearly 43,000 complaints have been filed on SCORES, of which about 37,500 have been disposed of. 

“Automatic closures on minor procedural lapses penalise complainants and reward non-responsive entities. Serious allegations are often shunted between SCORES and the MI Portal, creating an accountability vacuum and leaving investors without a clear remedial pathway,” said B Shravanth Shanker, advocate-on-record at the Supreme Court. 

Shanker also flagged transparency concerns, observing that the complaint lifecycle remains largely non-auditable from the complainant’s perspective — especially once a matter moves to the MI Portal, where there is no tracking mechanism, and timelines are undefined. 

Industry participants said routine disposal of complaints on SCORES thro­ugh computer-generated closures remains a recurring chal­lenge, with many orders failing to engage with the merits of the complaint and effectively forcing investors to approach SAT. 

“Complaints involving disclosure lapses, insider trading indicators or governance failures are frequently treated as investor service matters rather than potential enforcement triggers. This leads to premature closure on SCORES and pushes investors towards tribunal or writ remedies,” said Alay Razvi, managing partner at Accord Juris. 

Razvi added that SCORES largely functions as an administrative forwarding mechanism rather than a reasoned adjudicatory process. 

“Complaints are often disposed of based on action taken reports (ATRs) submitted by listed entities or intermediaries, without independent verification or a speaking determination by Sebi. 

“There is also no right of rebuttal — once an ATR is uploaded, complainants are not given a meaningful opportunity to contest factual inaccuracies or supplement evidence,” he said. 

Responding to emailed queries from Business Standard, Sebi said the average time taken by entities to submit ATRs is eight to nine days, while the average time for first-level review of complaints is five to six days. 

“If the investor is still unsatisfied, the investor may opt for the online dispute resolution (ODR) mechanism for resolution of the complaint,” Sebi said. 

On the MI Portal, the regulator said the status of the examination cannot be disclosed, as such reviews are conducted confidentially and holistically. “Therefore, no complaint num­ber or acknowledgement shall be sent to complainants,” it said. Sebi also said that for complaints received between April and December 2025, ATRs were submitted in 90 per cent of ca­ses, including 2 per cent where investors opted for the ODR mechanism. The remaining complaints are under process. 

The regulator added that complainants receive acknowledgements and other communications via email and WhatsApp, and that an audit trail of the complaint lifecycle can be tracked.

 

However, Sebi did not address allegations by market participants that complaints were frequently redirected between SCORES and the MI Portal. 

In the TBC–Varun Beverages matter before SAT, TBC submitted that it had filed review applications in June 2025 against Varun Beverages’ ATR, but no action had been taken. TBC also told the tribunal that its complaint on the MI Portal did not elicit any response from Sebi. 

To strengthen the redressal framework, industry participants said complaint disposal should be permitted only through reasoned orders or structured ATRs that record investigative steps, material examined, and the rationale for closure. They also called for rule-based, transparent portal-to-portal transfers that are formally communicated to complainants. 

In a loop

• Grievances redirected across Sebi’s two portals, say legal players
• SAT flagged lack of proper examination in Varun Beverages-TBC case
• Experts say Scores complaints closed based on Action Taken Reports without independent verification or reasoning
• Sebi says in FY26 (till Dec), action taken reports submitted in 90% of the complaints