SEBI issued an adjudication order dated July 8, 2026, against Late Padma Singhwani concerning dealings in illiquid stock options at BSE. The case involves alleged manipulative trading in BSE's illiquid options segment, a recurring enforcement focus for SEBI. Since the noticee is deceased, the order addresses legal complexities around adjudication proceedings against a dead person. SEBI's Adjudicating Officer issued the order under SEBI Act provisions governing securities law violations and market manipulation penalties.

SEBI's illiquid stock options cases at BSE represent one of India's largest coordinated market manipulation investigations. The BSE options segment, particularly for illiquid scrips, was systematically misused to generate artificial volumes, create false trading records, and facilitate tax evasion through circular trading — a phenomenon SEBI began aggressively prosecuting from around 2018 onwards. Hundreds of entities faced adjudication in this matter.

The Padma Singhwani case introduces a critical legal dimension: what happens when a noticee dies during or before adjudication proceedings? Under Indian securities law and general civil procedure principles, proceedings against deceased individuals raise questions of abatement, substitution of legal heirs, and enforceability of penalties. SEBI must navigate whether proceedings abate automatically or can continue against the estate.

For CLAT PG aspirants, this case is significant because it sits at the intersection of securities regulation (SEBI Act, 1992), procedural law (CPC Order XXII on abatement), and administrative adjudication. Examiners may present a passage from such an order and ask applicants to apply legal principles — can penalties be recovered from a deceased's estate? Does the proceeding abate? What procedural steps must a regulator follow? The case also tests understanding of SEBI's quasi-judicial adjudication framework and the Adjudicating Officer's powers under Sections 15-I and 15J of the SEBI Act.