SEBI, India’s financial regulatory body, is currently grappling with multiple challenges, ranging from accusations of a toxic work environment to concerns about its leadership and high-profile investigations.
The Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) is facing increasing scrutiny. Allegations have surfaced from employees who claim to be dealing with a hostile work atmosphere, while SEBI’s chairperson, Madhabi Puri Buch, is under fire for alleged conflicts of interest and the way she has managed significant investigations. These issues, which gained traction after American short-seller Hindenburg raised concerns about Puri, have raised doubts about the regulator’s internal environment and its tough stance in the financial sector.
The criticism is coming from various quarters: employees, industry professionals, and political entities like the Congress party. Employees have shared experiences of what they describe as a harsh work culture, citing public shaming, excessive workloads, and micromanagement. Complaints sent to the finance ministry detail verbal harassment, tight deadlines, and unrealistic performance targets.
In response, SEBI has strongly denied the claims, stating that these grievances are driven by demands for better perks and are influenced by outside forces. The regulator has pointed to efforts to enhance the workplace, including implementing Key Result Areas (KRAs), monthly performance goals, accountability measures, and technological upgrades.
The regulator argues that the accusations are not a reflection of systemic problems but rather a strategic attempt by some employees to push for increased benefits. According to SEBI, certain employees appear to have crafted a narrative to focus on the work environment as a means to gain leverage for demanding additional benefits.
SEBI’s statement, dated August 6, 2024, counters claims of an unprofessional culture, suggesting that such perceptions arise from issues like employees underreporting their workload by up to 75%, failing to meet KRAs, and engaging in departmental back-and-forth to delay decision-making.