Blog

People Also Read: Online Property Paper Verification in Delhi: A Step-by-Step Guide

What Was the Case All About?

The Disputed Land

The legal dispute revolves around 53 acres of land located in Raidurg Panmaktha village, Ranga Reddy district, Telangana. This land had previously been declared surplus under the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973 and vested with the State government in 1975.

However, despite this legal status, a cooperative society named Bhavana Cooperative Housing Society claimed rights over the land and subsequently sold portions of it to various individuals through registered sale deeds.

Who Are the Parties Involved?

1. Petitioners: Legal heirs of the original landowners (whose land had been declared surplus)

2. Respondents: M/s Viswesara Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. and others who had purchased the land from Bhavana Society

People Also Read: Property Title Verification In India: The Process, Methods and Other Aspects

What Did the Supreme Court Say?

A two-judge bench comprising Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice K. Vinod Chandran delivered the verdict. The key takeaway was this:

“A registered sale deed does not confer ownership if the seller does not have a legal and valid title to the property.”

Key Observations:

1. Lawful Title is Paramount: Just because a property has a registered sale deed in someone’s name does not mean they own it. If the seller did not have the right to sell it, the transaction is legally invalid.

2. Registration ≠ Ownership: Registration provides public notice of a transaction but does not validate the transfer unless the seller had a clear and marketable title.

3. No Interim Relief for Illegal Possession: The Court also set aside the Telangana High Court’s earlier interim relief that prevented eviction of the buyers. It emphasized that possession must be proved through evidence, not assumed through temporary court orders.

People Also Read: What Is Title Deed A Complete Guide To Navigate It In India

Case Background in Detail

How Did Bhavana Society Claim the Land?

Bhavana Society claimed it had a right over the land based on an unregistered agreement of sale dated 1982. They argued that the sale was later “revalidated” through a fresh understanding, even though no formal conveyance deed was executed.

Why Did the Supreme Court Reject This Claim?

The apex court rejected Bhavana Society’s claim due to the following reasons:

1. The original agreement was unregistered, and under Indian law, an agreement to sell cannot by itself transfer title.

2. The specific performance suit filed by the society to enforce the agreement was dismissed in 2001 and never revived.

3. The so-called “revalidated agreement” was not sufficient to prove any lawful title.

In short, the seller had no authority to sell the land in the first place.

People Also Read: Conveyance Deed and Sale Deed: Two sides of the same coin?

What Is the Legal Issue Here?

Can You Own Land Just Because It’s Registered in Your Name?

The judgment answers this question with a clear “No.”

Under Indian law, for any transfer of immovable property to be valid:

1. The seller must have a valid title to the property.

2. The deed must be registered, as per Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908.

3. The transfer must be lawful, and not in violation of any existing laws (e.g., land reform laws).

In this case, while the buyers had registered sale deeds, the seller did not have clear and legal ownership — hence, the buyers did not acquire valid title.

People Also Read: Unlocking The Secrets Of A Sale Deed Basic Concepts

Supreme Court on Possession and Ownership

Another major highlight of this ruling is the distinction between legal possession and actual ownership.

Interim Orders Do Not Prove Possession

The Supreme Court criticized the Telangana High Court for relying solely on interim orders to assume that the buyers had lawful possession. The Court clarified:

1. Interim protection cannot confer or imply possession.

2. Buyers must prove actual, physical possession through independent evidence.

This distinction is especially relevant in cases where disputes arise between multiple parties, some of whom may have temporary court orders but no actual title.

People Also Read: Understanding Property Laws in New Delhi: How Property Dispute Lawyers Can Help?

Constitutional Angle: Article 226 and Writ Jurisdiction

The Court also addressed the issue of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. The High Court had exercised writ jurisdiction to protect the buyers from eviction.

The Supreme Court cautioned:

1. Writ courts should not resolve complex title disputes.

2. Disputes over ownership or possession must be settled through civil suits, not writ petitions.

3. Article 226 is meant for violation of fundamental rights or legal duties, not for determining who owns a piece of land.

This reinforces the idea that due process through civil courts is necessary to establish ownership in complicated land matters.

People Also Read: Ways To Resolve Property Disputes In India

Broader Legal Principles Reinforced by This Judgment

1. Caveat Emptor – Buyer Beware

The ruling reminds all prospective buyers to conduct due diligence before purchasing property. This includes:

1. Verifying the title of the seller through certified documents

2. Checking encumbrance certificates

3. Ensuring compliance with local land laws, especially in rural areas or areas under land ceiling acts

2. Importance of Title Search

Before investing in property, a thorough title search must be conducted. This means verifying the chain of ownership going back 30+ years and ensuring there are no legal hindrances.

3. Registered Sale Deed is a Step, Not the Goal

Registration is only one step in the legal process of acquiring land. It does not cure defects in title.

Impact on Property Buyers, Developers, and Lawyers

For Property Buyers

1. Be extra cautious, especially when buying land in urbanizing areas or areas affected by land reforms

2. Hire legal professionals for title verification

3. Avoid shortcuts like relying solely on registered documents

For Real Estate Developers

1. Must ensure clean land titles before launching projects

2. Should avoid entering into Joint Development Agreements (JDAs) or purchase deeds without verifying land history

For Legal Practitioners

1. Educate clients about the difference between registration and ownership

2. Recommend civil suits in title disputes rather than writ petitions

3. Assist in proper documentation, verification, and due diligence

People Also Read: Understanding the Importance of a Property Title Search Report Before Buying Real Estate

Rule of Law and Land Reforms in India

The judgment also indirectly strengthens land reform laws like the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms Act. Many such laws were passed across India to prevent land monopolies and ensure equitable distribution.

In this case, since the land had already vested in the State in 1975, any private transaction thereafter was void.

The Court also observed inconsistencies in the stand taken by the original landowners and their power-of-attorney holders in land ceiling proceedings, indicating an attempt to manipulate the system for personal gain.

Court’s Final Verdict

1. The Telangana High Court’s division bench ruling was set aside.

2. The Single Judge’s order, which had denied interim relief and found no evidence of legal possession or title, was upheld.

3. The State was allowed to proceed with recovering the land under the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms Act.

Key Takeaways

Conclusion

The Supreme Court's judgment in Mahnoor Fatima Imran vs. Viswesara Infrastructure is a landmark decision that serves as a wake-up call for anyone dealing with property transactions in India. It reinforces a critical legal truth: ownership flows from title, not just from paperwork.

Whether you’re a first-time buyer or an experienced investor, understanding this difference can save you from years of legal trouble. Registration is important—but it must be backed by a lawful and valid title.

Before buying any property, always ask this question: Does the seller have the right to sell this land? If the answer is unclear, don’t proceed — or seek proper legal consultation.

People Also Read: Madras HC: Mother Cannot Cancel Gift Deed Executed by Father, and Vice‑Versa – Detailed Legal Analysi

What is a Gift Deed?

A Gift Deed is a legal document used to voluntarily transfer ownership of movable or immovable property from one person (donor) to another (donee) without monetary consideration. It must be executed on a non-judicial stamp paper and registered under Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908 to be legally valid.

Essential elements:

1. Voluntary act

2. Without monetary consideration

3. Acceptance by the donee

4. Transfer of ownership

People Also Read: Madras High Court: Parents Can Revoke Gift Deeds to Children Who Neglect Them​

Can a Gift Deed Be Cancelled?

Yes, a Gift Deed can be cancelled under certain circumstances. Once registered, a gift deed is irrevocable, unless:

1. A revocation clause is mentioned in the deed

2. There’s mutual agreement

3. Legal grounds such as fraud, coercion, or mistake are proven in court

People Also Read: Gift Deed In India An Overview

Who Can File for Cancellation?

Primarily, the donor—the person who gave the property—has the legal right to initiate cancellation. In certain circumstances, legal heirs, guardians (if donor is a minor or mentally unfit), or a representative with Power of Attorney can also approach the court.

People Also Read: Wills vs. Gift Deeds: Navigating Your Estate Planning Options

Legal Grounds for Cancelling a Gift Deed

1. Fraud or Misrepresentation (Section 17, Indian Contract Act, 1872)

If the donor was tricked into gifting the property through deceit, false promises, or misinformation, the deed can be revoked. Fraud must be proven in court with evidence.

Example: A son promises lifelong care for his father in exchange for a flat but abandons him after receiving the gift.

2. Coercion or Undue Influence (Sections 15 & 16, Indian Contract Act, 1872)

If the donor was pressured, emotionally manipulated, or influenced due to a position of power or trust (e.g., child, caretaker), the Gift Deed can be invalidated.

Example: A bedridden elderly woman signs over her home to a caretaker who coerced her during her illness.

3. Failure to Fulfil Conditions (Section 126, Transfer of Property Act, 1882)

If the gift was conditional and those conditions are violated, the donor can revoke the deed. The conditions must be clearly stated in the Gift Deed at the time of execution.

Example: A gift deed says the house will be gifted only if the donee takes care of the donor till death. If the donee neglects this, revocation is possible.

4. Non-Acceptance by Donee (Section 122, Transfer of Property Act, 1882)

A gift is incomplete without acceptance. If the donee refuses to accept the gift during the donor's lifetime, the deed is void and can be cancelled.

5. Lack of Delivery of Possession (Section 123, Transfer of Property Act, 1882)

For immovable property, mere registration is not enough. If physical or legal possession was not delivered, the gift may be considered incomplete.

6. Forgery or Tampering

If the Gift Deed is forged or tampered with—either signatures faked or contents altered—it is not enforceable and can be challenged both civilly and criminally.

7. Illegality or Immorality (Section 23, Indian Contract Act, 1872)

If the Gift Deed was executed for an illegal or immoral purpose, it can be struck down.

Example: Gifting property in exchange for future illegal support (like shielding criminal activity).

8. Mutual Agreement

Both parties can mutually agree to cancel the Gift Deed. The donor and donee must sign a Deed of Cancellation, and it should be registered under the Registration Act.

9. Death of Donor Before Acceptance

If the donor dies before the donee formally accepts the gift, the deed is void.

10. Inadequate Stamp Duty or Non-Registration (Section 17, Registration Act, 1908)

A gift deed must be registered and stamped as per the applicable state laws. Failure to do so can render the deed legally invalid.

11. Incompetency of Donor

If the donor was:

1. A minor

2. Of unsound mind

3. Under intoxication

…at the time of executing the deed, it is voidable.

People Also Read: Know Various Aspects About The Gift Deed and Stamp Duty

Legal Procedure to Cancel a Gift Deed in India

Step 1: Legal Consultation

Hire a property lawyer to evaluate the deed and suggest a viable legal ground for cancellation.

Step 2: Draft and File a Civil Suit

A cancellation petition is filed under Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 in the civil court where the property is situated.

Step 3: Court Issues Notice

The court will issue notices to the donee and other concerned parties.

Step 4: Present Evidence

The donor must provide solid documentary evidence or witnesses to prove the claim (fraud, coercion, non-fulfilment of condition, etc.).

Step 5: Court Hearing

Both parties will be heard. If the judge is satisfied, they will order cancellation of the deed.

Step 6: Registry Update

The order must be presented to the local Sub-Registrar Office, and the gift deed will be marked as cancelled in official property records.

People Also Read: Rates of Stamp Duty on Gift deed across Some Prominent Cities Of India

Time Limit to Cancel a Gift Deed

The limitation period to file a cancellation suit depends on the ground:

People Also Read: Gift Deed: All you should know.

Important Case Laws on Gift Deed Cancellation

1. Krishnamurthy vs. Thulasi (2021) – Madras HC

The court allowed revocation of a Gift Deed due to failure by the donee to fulfil the condition of caring for the donor.

2. Renuka vs. Ramanna (2022) – Karnataka HC

Held that undue influence by a son to obtain a property gift from his elderly mother was valid ground for cancellation.

3. Gomtibai vs. Mattulal (1996) – Supreme Court

SC ruled that the donor must prove non-delivery of possession for cancellation to succeed.

Precautions While Executing a Gift Deed

To avoid future disputes:

1. Always mention conditions clearly if the gift is conditional.

2. Ensure proper registration and stamping.

3. Donor and donee should sign in the presence of witnesses.

4. Prefer video recording or photographic evidence of intent and delivery.

5. Consult a lawyer before execution.

People Also Read: High Court Empowers Elderly: Parents Can Revoke Gift Deeds If Neglected by Children

Conclusion

A Gift Deed is a noble and irrevocable gesture—but only when done legally, fairly, and with full consent. If the donor has been misled, coerced, or if the donee violates stated conditions, the law offers remedies.

However, cancelling a Gift Deed involves a formal legal process, supporting evidence, and judicial approval. The time limits are strict, and professional legal help is crucial for a successful outcome.

Whether you're a donor reconsidering your decision or someone facing disputes over a gifted property, understanding your rights and obligations is essential to avoid costly litigation and protect your assets.

People Also Read: How Is The Indian Stock Exchange Regulate

Understanding the SEBI ESOP Reform: What Has Changed?

The Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) has fundamentally altered how Employee Stock Ownership Plans (ESOPs) apply to startup founders — especially those designated as promoters — during and after the Initial Public Offering (IPO) process.

This reform is not just a technical rule change; it is a structural shift in how India views and supports its startup founders during their transition to public markets. Let’s break down exactly what has changed.

The Old Rule: No ESOPs for Promoters Post-IPO

Under the old SEBI framework:

1. Promoters were prohibited from receiving or exercising ESOPs after their company was listed.

2. This rule treated startup founders the same as traditional business promoters, ignoring the fact that startup founders often:

   1. Draw minimal salaries

   2. Rely on ESOPs as deferred compensation

   3. Endure heavy equity dilution over multiple fundraising rounds

3. Founders had to either restructure their equity plans or forgo ESOP benefits, just to stay compliant before filing for an IPO.

4. This created friction between regulatory compliance and entrepreneurial incentive, often discouraging startups from going public altogether.

The New Rule: Founders Can Retain ESOPs Post-Listing

In June 2025, SEBI announced a pivotal update:

Startup founders can now hold or exercise ESOPs even after the company is listed, provided certain conditions are met.

Here’s what the new rule allows:

Why the One-Year Rule?

SEBI has introduced a 12-month cooling-off period between the grant of ESOPs and the DRHP filing to:

1. Prevent last-minute ESOP allocations purely for IPO-driven gains

2. Maintain corporate governance standards

3. Ensure that the stock options reflect genuine long-term incentives and not short-term windfalls

This is a pro-investor move, ensuring founders have “skin in the game” well before the IPO.

What the Reform Does NOT Change

While this is a significant reform, some things remain the same:

1. Other employees and non-promoter executives continue to follow existing ESOP frameworks.

2. All ESOP grants, including those to founders, must still comply with:

   1. SEBI (Share Based Employee Benefits and Sweat Equity) Regulations, 2021

   2. Company’s internal compensation policies

   3. Board and shareholder approvals

The reform is focused and precise, aimed at resolving a specific pain point without overhauling the entire ESOP regime.

People Also Read: Initial Public Offering - Know All About IPO in Stock Market

Why This Reform Matters: Key Benefits for Startup Founders

Let’s explore the key benefits and why this change is being hailed as a game changer by India’s tech and investor communities.

1. Aligns with the Realities of Startup Building

Startup founders:

1. Draw minimal or no salaries for years.

2. Endure significant dilution through multiple funding rounds.

3. Rely heavily on ESOPs as a form of deferred compensation and long-term incentive.

Under the earlier regime, these founders were denied the right to hold ESOPs post-listing if labeled as promoters — effectively stripping them of a key financial motivator just when public listing milestones were achieved.

With the reform:
Founders can now enjoy equity-linked compensation even after IPO, recognizing the sweat equity they’ve put in for years.

2. Encourages Long-Term Thinking and Stability

Bringing a company to IPO is a massive achievement — but managing a public company requires even greater commitment.

This reform allows founders to:

1. Stay financially incentivized beyond the IPO.

2. Align their personal success with long-term company performance.

3. Avoid quick exits that could destabilize the leadership team.

Incentivized leadership = sustained innovation + better shareholder value.

3. Simplifies Cap Table Structuring Before IPO

Earlier, founders had to jump through hoops to retain ownership without violating SEBI’s promoter ESOP restriction, such as:

1. Issuing stock through third-party trusts.

2. Designing alternative compensation models (e.g., phantom stock).

3. Altering designation to avoid being classified as a "promoter."

These workaround strategies increased legal complexity and compliance risk.

Now:
Founders and their boards can plan equity structures with clarity and compliance, resulting in:

1. Transparent DRHP filings.

2. Cleaner cap tables.

3. Better investor confidence.

4. Strengthens Founder Morale and Retention

Founders often dedicate a decade or more to building their companies from scratch. Yet the psychological blow of losing ESOP rights at IPO was a demoralizing precedent in Indian markets.

SEBI’s decision restores:

1. Founder morale by preserving rewards they’ve rightfully earned.

2. A sense of emotional ownership during the critical post-listing phase.

3. Incentives to stay longer and lead stronger — which benefits public shareholders too.

5. Improves Talent Alignment Across Growth Stages

Startups transition from:

1. Early product development →

2. Growth scaling →

3. Pre-IPO preparations →

4. Listed company dynamics.

This reform allows consistent equity alignment across all these stages, particularly for founder-promoters, which:

1. Reinforces commitment.

2. Reduces leadership churn post-listing.

3. Helps boards maintain operational continuity.

This continuity is especially vital for tech startups where the founding team’s vision and leadership style are tightly integrated with company success.

6. Brings India Closer to Global Best Practices

Globally, startup founders listed on NASDAQ, LSE, or SGX routinely hold stock options post-IPO. India’s earlier stance — treating startup founders like old-school industrialists — was out of sync with international norms.

This reform:

1. Bridges that gap.

2. Sends a clear message: India is ready to support global-scale startups.

3. Makes Indian IPOs more competitive and attractive in a global funding environment.

7. Incentivizes More Startups to Go Public

For many high-growth Indian startups, the fear of losing founder incentives post-IPO acted as a deterrent to listing.

SEBI’s reform:

1. Encourages earlier IPO decisions.

2. Unlocks better exit opportunities for VCs and early investors.

3. Enhances depth and diversity in India’s public markets.

8. Promotes Transparency and Good Governance

By requiring:

1. A one-year cooling-off period between ESOP grant and DRHP filing.

2. Full disclosure of ESOPs in the DRHP.

SEBI has built in strong governance measures that:

1. Prevent last-minute opportunistic ESOP allocations.

2. Protect public market investors from valuation surprises.

3. Ensure only genuinely committed founders benefit from this rule.

9. Supports Founder Well-being and Wealth Creation

Let’s not ignore the personal toll:

1. Founders typically mortgage assets, invest savings, and take emotional and physical risks while building.

2. They endure delayed gratification as they reinvest earnings back into the business.

This reform:

1. Validates that commitment.

2. Offers a fair shot at wealth creation through equity ownership, just like other stakeholders.

It’s not just a financial benefit — it’s an acknowledgment of the founder’s journey.

People Also Read: Comprehensive Guide to Understanding Valuation Report Requirements

Stakeholder Reactions: Industry Voices Applaud the Move

SEBI’s ESOP reform has sent ripples of optimism through India’s startup ecosystem. From founders and venture capitalists to policy experts and equity management professionals, the response has been overwhelmingly positive.

Let’s explore what key stakeholders are saying — and why this reform is being hailed as a historic win for startup India.

Founders: Finally, Recognition of Long-Term Commitment

Startup founders have welcomed the reform with open arms, describing it as long overdue. For years, they have operated in a regulatory environment that offered little flexibility once their companies reached IPO stage. Now, with SEBI’s move:

“This is a good move — it allows promoters and founders to be incentivized for the long term.”
— Mayank Kumar, Co-founder of BorderPlus and upGrad

This statement encapsulates the relief felt by founders who have:

1. Worked on low salaries

2. Faced multiple dilutions

3. Navigated cap table complexities

4. And still pushed their ventures toward the public market

The reform means founders can now continue benefiting from the value they create, well beyond the listing event.

Investors and Venture Capitalists: Incentives Now Aligned with Execution

Venture capitalists have consistently highlighted the disconnect between public market compliance and startup operating models. SEBI’s announcement finally bridges that divide.

“Founders sacrifice a lot during the building phase... This relaxation allows them to participate further in value creation beyond the listing timeline.”
— Vinod Murali, Co-founder & Managing Partner, Alteria Capital

VCs see this as a move that:

1. Promotes continuity in leadership

2. Boosts post-IPO performance

3. Enhances investor confidence in founder-led execution

Well-aligned incentives are vital for delivering consistent returns to public shareholders — and this rule nails that alignment.

Policy Experts: A Pro-Startup Regulatory Mindset

For policy think tanks and startup advocacy forums, the reform is more than a procedural tweak. It signals a shift in India’s regulatory posture, one that finally understands and supports new-age companies.

“This is a big relief to founders of new-age companies… It will enable them to avail skin-in-the-game benefits and align their interests with other shareholders.”
— Startup Policy Forum

Experts also appreciate the cooling-off period of one year, which acts as a built-in safeguard against regulatory misuse. The combination of flexibility and control reflects a mature policy outlook.

Equity Management Professionals: Simplification with Strong Governance

Companies like Qapita, which help startups manage equity and ESOP workflows, have also weighed in.

“For startup founders, unlike traditional promoters, the starting compensation is much lower. So it incentivizes them if this is allowed… It brings necessary nuance.”
— Ravi Ravulaparthi, CEO & Co-founder, Qapita

Ravi’s insights highlight that:

1. ESOPs are compensation tools for founders, not just ownership perks.

2. The ability to retain ESOPs after listing gives founders a genuine chance to realize value in liquid markets — something they’ve historically missed out on.
    

Capital Market Experts: Enhancing India’s Global Attractiveness

Capital markets analysts are calling this a globally competitive move, especially with more Indian startups eyeing public listings in 2025 and beyond.

“SEBI now allowing founders to retain ESOPs after IPO is a positive step towards making the markets more entrepreneur-friendly.”
— Kushal Bhagia, Founder, All In Capital

He further added that founders, after 7–12 years of building with little salary and heavy dilution, deserve this financial upside. Investors too benefit from motivated leadership post-IPO, reducing the risk of post-listing disengagement.

Broader Ecosystem: Morale, Momentum, and Market Confidence

Across the board, the sentiment is one of renewed confidence:

1. Founders feel seen and supported.

2. Boards gain clarity in ESOP structuring.

3. Retail and institutional investors get aligned leadership post-listing.

Together, these reactions suggest that SEBI has struck the right balance — removing ambiguity, boosting morale, and safeguarding investor interests.

People Also Read: Learn About the Nuances of Valuing an Alternative Investment Fund for Accurate Assessments

Regulatory Perspective: SEBI’s Strategic Intent

Behind every landmark policy lies a purpose — and SEBI’s reform on ESOPs for startup founders is no exception. Far from being a one-off relaxation, this move reflects a deliberate shift in India’s capital market philosophy, especially when it comes to nurturing innovation-driven enterprises.

Let’s examine why SEBI made this move, what it reveals about the regulator’s evolving mindset, and how it fits into India’s larger economic vision.

1. Bridging the Gap Between Old-Economy Rules and New-Age Startups

India’s legacy promoter framework was built around family-run, industrial-era businesses where promoters held large stakes and drew regular salaries. These rules:

1. Restricted ESOPs for promoters

2. Assumed wealth had already been accumulated

3. Were designed to prevent insider misuse

But this framework was increasingly outdated for startups, where:

1. Founders often draw little or no salary

2. Ownership is heavily diluted across funding rounds

3. ESOPs serve as deferred and performance-based compensation

SEBI recognized this structural mismatch. The reform signifies a policy modernization — one that acknowledges how differently startups operate and removes the one-size-fits-all regulatory approach.

2. Aligning Regulation with India’s Economic Goals

India is betting big on its startup economy to drive future growth, jobs, innovation, and capital formation. The government’s Startup India and Digital India initiatives are pushing more companies toward formalization and listing.

SEBI’s ESOP reform complements this mission by:

1. Reducing listing friction for high-growth companies

2. Strengthening entrepreneurial incentives

3. Encouraging more startups to tap domestic capital markets

It’s a move aligned with India’s vision of becoming a $5 trillion economy, where startups are key contributors to both GDP and employment.

3. Promoting Ease of Doing Business and Regulatory Clarity

SEBI has been increasingly focused on making India’s public markets more accessible. Over the past few years, it has:

1. Introduced Innovators Growth Platform (IGP) for startups

2. Simplified IPO disclosure norms

3. Digitized and de-cluttered compliance frameworks

Allowing founders to retain ESOPs post-listing is consistent with this trend. It removes ambiguity, simplifies cap table planning, and sends a strong message: “India is open for entrepreneurial business — even after IPO.”

4. Encouraging Long-Term Value Creation Post-IPO

SEBI is aware that IPOs are no longer just exit points — they are launchpads for the next phase of business growth. For public shareholders, sustained founder involvement is crucial to:

1. Ensuring strategic continuity

2. Maintaining innovation velocity

3. Reducing the risk of leadership churn

By letting founders retain ESOPs after listing, SEBI ensures that they stay financially and emotionally invested, ultimately improving post-IPO governance and performance.

This is in line with global best practices in mature markets like the U.S. and U.K., where founder incentives are considered vital even after public listing.

5. Balancing Flexibility with Accountability

What sets this reform apart is how SEBI has built safeguards to prevent misuse, ensuring regulatory discipline isn’t sacrificed:

1. The 12-month cooling-off rule before DRHP filing prevents last-minute stock option grants for short-term gain.

2. Mandatory DRHP disclosures introduce transparency and protect investor interests.

3. Continued compliance with SEBI’s SBEB & SE Regulations, 2021 ensures that ESOP frameworks remain well-governed.

This shows that SEBI is not compromising on accountability — it is simply evolving to reflect the needs of a dynamic market.

6. Responding to Market Signals and Stakeholder Feedback

Over the last few years, SEBI has increasingly engaged with:

1. Startup founders and boards

2. Investor groups and VCs

3. Policy forums and think tanks

4. Equity management platforms

The ESOP reform is a direct outcome of that feedback loop. It signals that SEBI:

1. Listens to its stakeholders

2. Understands the challenges of startups

3. Is willing to act when there is alignment on long-term benefits

It’s a testament to responsive and participatory policymaking, rare in many regulatory systems.

7. Enhancing India’s Reputation as a Startup-Friendly Capital Market

By introducing this forward-thinking reform, SEBI is setting a precedent in Asia and beyond.

It positions India as:

1. A jurisdiction that rewards innovation

2. A capital market that values founders’ contributions

3. A regulatory environment that combines growth with governance

This helps attract:

1. Global venture capital

2. Foreign institutional investors (FIIs)

3. And encourages Indian startups to list domestically, instead of seeking foreign exchanges like NASDAQ

People Also Read: What Is Comparable Company Analysis? Everything You Need to Know

What Are the Conditions? – A Closer Look

To ensure the rule is not misused, SEBI has included the following safeguards:

These guardrails strike the right balance between flexibility and compliance.

Impact on the IPO Ecosystem: A Catalyst for Growth

SEBI’s ESOP reform doesn’t just benefit individual founders — it transforms the startup IPO ecosystem at large. By correcting a long-standing structural flaw, the regulator has opened the door to a healthier, founder-aligned, and more dynamic public market environment in India.

Let’s examine how this reform is likely to shape the future of Indian IPOs across multiple dimensions — from startup behavior to market maturity and investor sentiment.

1. Encourages More Startups to Go Public

Historically, many Indian startups delayed or avoided IPOs altogether due to:

1. The fear of losing equity-linked incentives post-listing.

2. Uncertainty about regulatory compliance around cap table structuring.

3. Challenges aligning ESOPs with promoter status.

Now, with SEBI’s reform in place:

1. Founders no longer face a penalty for listing.

2. ESOPs can remain a key component of their compensation and motivation strategy.

3. Companies can plan their IPOs more confidently and transparently.

Outcome: Expect more high-growth startups to take the IPO route sooner, deepening India’s capital markets.

2. Streamlines Cap Table Restructuring Ahead of Listing

Earlier:

1. Startups had to redesign equity structures, create ESOP trusts, or alter shareholding to avoid conflicts with SEBI rules.

2. This added compliance costs, legal complexity, and timeline delays to the IPO journey.

Now:

1. Companies can maintain cleaner cap tables with transparent ESOP allocations to founders.

2. DRHP disclosures make the process more investor-friendly and governance-aligned.

Outcome: Smoother DRHP filings, reduced legal friction, and faster IPO preparedness.

3. Retains Founders Post-IPO: A Key Success Factor

In the global startup ecosystem, founder continuity post-listing is strongly correlated with long-term company performance. However, in India, founders previously had fewer reasons to stick around after IPOs, especially once ESOPs were restricted.

This led to:

1. Leadership churn right after listing.

2. Execution gaps during the crucial post-IPO growth phase.

With the ESOP reform:

1. Founders stay financially and emotionally invested in the company.

2. Boards and shareholders gain greater continuity and predictability.

3. The risk of value erosion from sudden exits is reduced.

Outcome: Stronger post-IPO execution, better investor confidence, and increased long-term shareholder value.

4. Builds a More Competitive and Investor-Friendly Market

Public market investors — especially retail and mutual funds — value:

1. Aligned incentives between management and shareholders

2. Transparent ownership and compensation structures

3. Strategic stability after the IPO

SEBI’s reform delivers all of the above, helping:

1. Strengthen investor faith in founder-led companies

2. Ensure that public markets are seen as viable funding avenues, not just exit paths

3. Boost market maturity by setting long-term performance as the north star

Outcome: Greater retail participation and stronger institutional interest in tech-led IPOs.

5. Boosts India’s Position as a Global IPO Destination

SEBI’s reform brings India’s ESOP policies closer to international norms followed by:

1. NASDAQ and NYSE in the U.S.

2. London Stock Exchange (AIM) in the U.K.

3. SGX in Singapore

This is particularly important as more Indian startups:

1. Explore dual listings

2. Attract global VC and PE investments

3. Aspire to scale across international markets

Now, Indian exchanges can offer:

1. Regulatory parity

2. Founder-aligned incentives

3. A credible public capital exit framework

Outcome: Fewer startups will feel the need to list abroad — strengthening domestic financial markets.

6. Supports Market Timing and IPO Pipeline Momentum

In 2024:

1. 13 startups went public, raising over ₹29,000 crore.

2. 25+ more were exploring listing, though some paused due to market volatility.

With SEBI’s reform:

1. The economic case for going public strengthens.

2. Even if timing is tricky, founders can now plan better — knowing their incentives remain intact.

3. Delayed IPOs can resume without reworking ESOP grants or cap tables.

Outcome: A more resilient IPO pipeline, especially as macro conditions improve in late 2025 and beyond.

7. Reinforces Good Governance with Founder Incentivization

The reform ensures:

1. Disclosure of ESOPs in DRHP filings

2. A minimum 12-month grant window before filing

3. Continued compliance with SBEB & SE Regulations

This sends a clear message:

India’s capital markets are pro-innovation, but not at the cost of transparency.

Outcome: A regulatory environment that combines flexibility, fairness, and accountability.

People Also Read: Employee Stock Option Scheme

Case Study: Why This Matters — Hypothetical Example

Imagine a founder of a startup like “TechNova,” who:

1. Has built the company for 10 years

2. Draws only ₹25,000/month as salary

3. Owns just 5% due to multiple fundraising rounds

4. Is planning to list on the NSE

Under old rules, if TechNova goes public:

1. The founder would be disqualified from ESOPs

2. They’d receive no further equity participation

Under the new rule:

1. The founder retains ESOPs granted a year before DRHP

2. They can monetize post-IPO performance

3. They stay motivated to lead the company into its next decade

This is a paradigm shift for startup founders.

Comparison with Global Markets

Let’s put things into a global context:

With this move, India aligns itself with global best practices, making it a more attractive destination for high-growth tech startups.

People Also Read: Sweat Equity Shares

ESOP Buyback Trends Signal Maturity

One of the clearest signs of a maturing startup ecosystem is how companies treat employee stock options — not just as a perk, but as a real, liquid reward for value creation. In India, the ESOP landscape has evolved significantly in recent years, and the latest SEBI reform complements that trajectory.

The increasing frequency and sophistication of ESOP buyback programs are proof that startups are no longer waiting until IPOs to deliver returns to employees and founders. Instead, they are using structured liquidity events to reward, retain, and reinvest in their teams.

Buybacks Are Becoming Commonplace

According to data from Qapita (a leading equity management platform):

1. In 2024, 26 startups announced ESOP buyback programs — up from 19 in 2023.

2. While the total payout value dropped to $252 million, this was a correction from the $825 million recorded in 2023 (skewed heavily by Flipkart’s mega buyback).

3. The trend clearly indicates increased adoption of buybacks as part of employee compensation and retention strategy.

This marks a shift from:

1. Early-stage mindset (where ESOPs are viewed as distant future gains)

   To:

2. Growth-stage and pre-IPO mindset (where ESOPs are actively monetized as a business tool)

What Do These Buybacks Represent?

ESOP buybacks are no longer rare events. They reflect:

1. Maturity of Private Markets
   Startups are creating internal liquidity cycles before reaching IPO, reducing employee turnover and enhancing morale.

2. Investor Support
   Buybacks are often backed by secondary funding rounds or internal reserves, showing strong investor faith in the company’s fundamentals.

3. Governance Readiness
   Conducting structured buybacks requires clear equity records, pricing policies, and board oversight — all signs of governance discipline.

4. Talent Strategy
   Companies use buybacks to:

   1. Retain top performers

   2. Recruit experienced leadership

   3. Show commitment to long-term employee wealth creation

Linking Buyback Momentum with SEBI’s ESOP Reform

SEBI’s decision to allow promoters (founders) to hold ESOPs post-IPO fits seamlessly into this rising culture of structured equity management.

Here's how they align:

This dual momentum — internal (buybacks) and external (regulatory reform) — suggests that India’s equity markets are entering a new era of sophistication.

Industry Voices on ESOP Buyback Culture

“Buybacks are no longer vanity events. They’re part of a broader founder and talent retention strategy. With SEBI’s rule, even founders now get to share in this liquidity cycle post-listing.”
— Equity Advisor, VC-backed Startup

“We’ve seen employees value ESOPs more once they see real money from buybacks. Founder participation adds credibility to the whole system.”
— HR Head, Late-Stage Fintech Startup

These statements underscore the psychological and structural impact of treating ESOPs as real rewards, not empty promises.

The New Equity Lifecycle in Indian Startups

Traditionally, equity in Indian startups followed this basic path:

Grant ESOPs → Wait till IPO → Cash Out (if lucky)

Now, the flow is evolving into:

Grant ESOPs → Periodic Buybacks → Continued Value Post-IPO (via SEBI’s reform)

This modern lifecycle:

1. Reduces dependency on IPOs as the sole liquidity event

2. Enhances predictability for employees and founders

3. Strengthens trust in stock-based compensation

Case in Point: The 2023–24 Buyback Momentum

Some notable buyback programs in 2023–24 included:

1. Razorpay, Swiggy, and Zerodha offered multi-million-dollar ESOP buybacks

2. Lenskart and Groww extended participation to even junior-level employees

3. A mix of secondary and funded buybacks showed flexible strategies

This proves that startups are ready to:

1. Share the wealth

2. Play the long game

3. Prepare for public markets with maturity

And with SEBI’s post-IPO ESOP allowance, founders can now lead by example — staying invested long after the ticker tape settles.

People Also Read: A Comprehensive Guide to Private Placement of Shares under Company Law

Challenges and Criticisms: Is It All Good News?

While SEBI’s ESOP reform has been widely applauded as a long-overdue and founder-friendly move, no policy is without its caveats, challenges, or unintended consequences.

Let’s explore the limitations, criticisms, and grey areas that industry observers, legal experts, and founders have pointed out.

1. Not Applicable Retroactively

Issue:
One of the biggest limitations of the reform is that it is not retroactive.

1. Founders who received ESOP grants within 12 months prior to filing the Draft Red Herring Prospectus (DRHP) will not be eligible to retain or exercise those options post-IPO.

2. This affects startups already in the late stages of IPO planning in 2024–2025, who may have granted ESOPs without anticipating this rule.

Impact:
Founders close to IPO filing are now stuck — either having to:

1. Wait longer to meet the 12-month requirement, or

2. Forego their ESOPs altogether

Criticism:
Stakeholders argue that a one-time grandfathering provision for existing companies could have softened this impact.

2. The One-Year Cooling-Off Period: Practical or Painful?

Issue:
While the 12-month holding period before DRHP filing ensures the rule isn't misused, some founders argue it may be too restrictive.

1. Startups operate in rapidly changing markets.

2. IPO timelines often shift due to economic or geopolitical conditions.

What if:

1. ESOPs were granted 11 months ago, but IPO plans had to accelerate?

2. Market conditions forced a quicker DRHP filing?

Impact:
The rigid timeline may force some founders to choose between:

1. Postponing IPOs (risking market timing), or

2. Losing ESOP benefits

Criticism:
Some suggest a sliding scale or tiered approach to eligibility instead of a fixed one-year rule.

3. Limited to ‘Promoter’ Designation — What About Co-Founders and CXOs?

Issue:
The reform applies specifically to founders designated as “promoters”. But in many modern startups:

1. The founding team includes multiple people, not all of whom are classified as promoters.

2. Key CXOs (e.g., CTOs, CFOs) who join early often receive significant ESOPs.

Impact:
These individuals still face the same post-IPO ESOP restrictions as before — potentially leading to inequity within leadership teams.

Criticism:
A more nuanced classification — such as “early management equity holders” — may be needed in the future.

4. Potential for Misinterpretation and Ambiguity

Issue:
Despite its good intentions, the reform introduces new grey areas, such as:

1. How to define "grant" — is it the date of board approval, vesting, or acceptance by the founder?

2. What if an ESOP plan was revised or re-priced close to IPO?

3. Will DRHP disclosures be uniformly enforced by merchant bankers?

Impact:
This can lead to compliance risks or legal confusion, particularly in companies without robust equity management systems.

Criticism:
SEBI may need to issue implementation guidelines or FAQs to eliminate ambiguity and reduce litigation risk.

5. Possibility of ESOP Misuse or Window Dressing

Issue:
There’s a risk — however small — that some companies may:

1. Use strategically timed ESOP grants to promoters under the guise of performance incentives.

2. Dress up the DRHP disclosures to make such grants appear aligned with long-term value, even if they’re not.

Impact:
Such actions could:

1. Undermine investor trust

2. Attract regulatory scrutiny

3. Harm the startup ecosystem’s credibility

Criticism:
Stronger auditing, board oversight, and penalty mechanisms are necessary to ensure the rule is not gamed.

6. Potential Market Perception Risk

Issue:
While many investors support founder retention, some public market analysts and retail investors may view the reform skeptically.

1. There’s a risk of misinterpretation that founders are rewarding themselves excessively.

2. ESOP disclosures in DRHPs could become public relations flashpoints during IPO marketing.

Impact:
Companies will need to manage:

1. Clear investor communication

2. Transparent disclosures

3. Possibly even media narratives around founder compensation

Criticism:
Investor education and better storytelling around ESOPs will be essential to ensure positive market sentiment.

7. Reform Doesn’t Address Deeper Structural Issues

Issue:
Some stakeholders argue that while the reform is welcome, it still doesn’t fix:

1. High taxation on ESOPs at exercise

2. Lack of secondary markets for ESOP liquidity pre-IPO

3. Ambiguities around buyback pricing and valuation

Impact:
Unless paired with tax reforms and liquidity mechanisms, ESOPs will remain sub-optimal as compensation tools, especially for early-stage employees.

Criticism:
A more holistic ESOP reform package may be needed — including coordination with CBDT and Ministry of Corporate Affairs.

People Also Read: Comprehensive Guide to Merchant Banker Valuation Methods

Conclusion: A Policy That Recognizes Founders as Builders

SEBI’s ESOP reform is more than a rule change — it’s a recognition of the sweat, time, and sacrifice that startup founders pour into their ventures.

By enabling founders to continue participating in equity gains post-IPO, India is finally saying: we support our entrepreneurs not just in their struggle to build, but in their success too.

This reform:

1. Brings fairness to the capital markets

2. Aligns founders’ incentives with long-term company growth

3. And puts India on a global footing in startup-friendly regulations

It is, in every sense of the word, a game changer.

People Also Read: What Is Property Sale Agreement Definitions And Details

Background of the Case

Parties Involved

The dispute revolved around a sale agreement allegedly executed in 1982. The respondent in the case claimed ownership rights and protection from dispossession based on this agreement. However, the agreement was never registered at the time of execution, as is required under Indian law.

Core Issue

The main legal question before the Court was:

Can an unregistered sale agreement—executed decades ago—be validated after years and form the basis of ownership or protection against dispossession?

The respondent argued that the original agreement was "validated" in 2006 by the Assistant Registrar. However, the appellants challenged the legality of such validation, citing that the delay in registration was far beyond the permissible limit under the Registration Act, 1908.

Supreme Court's Observations

Key Sections Discussed

• Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908 – Mandates registration of documents concerning the transfer of immovable property.

• Section 23 – Allows a period of four months for registering a document from the date of execution.

• Section 34(1) Proviso – Gives the Registrar the power to condone a further four-month delay for registration on payment of a fine.

The Verdict

The bench comprising Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice K. Vinod Chandran unequivocally held that:

“The agreement of 1982, the original one and the revalidated one, cannot result in a valid title, merely for reason that the subsequent instrument had been registered.”

In essence, a document that was never registered within the stipulated legal time cannot be relied upon decades later to establish ownership or defend against dispossession.

Why Registration Is Critical in Property Transactions

1. Legal Enforceability

Under Indian law, any transaction involving the sale of immovable property worth more than ₹100 must be registered. Without registration, such agreements are:

1. Legally inadmissible as evidence in court.

2. Not valid to convey title to the buyer.

3. Unable to provide protection against dispossession.

2. Protection Against Fraud

Registration ensures that all transactions are recorded in a government registry. This helps prevent:

1. Multiple sales of the same property

2. Forgery or alteration of ownership claims

3. Illegal occupation or encroachment

3. Clarity of Ownership

Registered sale deeds provide an official, government-verified proof of ownership, which is essential for:

1. Mutation of land records

2. Loan applications

3. Future resale of property

People Also Read: Understanding The Property Registration Process

Legal Analysis of the Supreme Court’s Judgment

Misuse of “Validation” Clause

In this case, the respondent relied on a 2006 revalidation of the original 1982 agreement to assert their ownership. However, the Court made it clear that:

1. The validation of an unregistered agreement after two decades has no legal standing.

2. The Registration Act’s time limit (4 months + 4 months grace period) must be followed strictly.

3. No authority exists to validate an unregistered document 24 years after its execution.

High Court’s Error

The Supreme Court observed that the High Court had erred in granting protection from dispossession based on such an outdated and unregistered agreement. It reiterated that:

"The protection of ownership and possession under law is only available when title is legally transferred."

Thus, equity cannot override express provisions of law.

Impact on Property Law and Real Estate Practices

1. No Loophole via “Validation”

The ruling closes any loophole where parties attempt to validate unregistered documents years later. This will have a ripple effect on many pending cases involving old, unregistered agreements.

2. Encourages Timely Compliance

Buyers and sellers must now ensure that:

1. Sale agreements are registered promptly.

2. All procedures under the Registration Act are followed strictly.

Failure to do so could invalidate the entire transaction and lead to legal disputes.

3. Real Estate Regulation Tightened

This judgment strengthens the legal position that:

1. Ownership must be evidenced through registered instruments.

2. No informal or oral agreements, no matter how old, will hold water without proper registration.

Key Takeaways for Property Buyers

Always Register the Sale Agreement

Don’t rely on verbal or informal agreements. Get your documents registered at the Sub-Registrar’s Office within the time limit.

Don’t Ignore Legal Deadlines

Missing registration deadlines can invalidate your transaction entirely.

Possession ≠ Ownership

Even if you’ve paid for a property and have moved in, you don’t own it legally until the sale is registered.

Seek Legal Advice

If you're entering a property transaction, it’s advisable to consult a property lawyer to ensure all legal aspects are covered.

People Also Read: What Are The New Rules For Property Registration In India

Legal Provisions Revisited

Section 17 – Documents That Need Registration

Includes:

1. Sale of immovable property

2. Lease of property for more than 12 months

3. Gift deeds

Section 23 – Time for Presentation

States that a document must be presented within 4 months from the date of execution.

Section 34(1) – Delay Condonation

Allows Registrar to condone delay of up to another 4 months upon payment of fine, but not beyond that.

Judicial Precedents Cited

Apart from the current ruling, previous Supreme Court decisions have also highlighted similar principles:

• Suraj Lamp & Industries vs State of Haryana (2011):
  Stated that power of attorney sales and unregistered agreements do not convey title.

• K.B. Saha and Sons Pvt. Ltd. v. Development Consultant Ltd. (2008):
  Held that unregistered documents are inadmissible in evidence unless for collateral purposes.

Implications for Legal Practitioners and Courts

1. Courts must reject claims based on unregistered documents.

2. Lawyers must advise clients on the mandatory nature of registration.

3. Parties must not approach courts with claims based on time-barred or invalid sale agreements.

People Also Read: Power of Attorney for Property Registration in India Legalkart

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s ruling sets a strong precedent that:

“An unregistered sale agreement, even if later validated, cannot create or transfer legal ownership rights.”

In a country where informal property transactions are common, this judgment serves as a wake-up call for both buyers and sellers. Legal compliance isn’t just paperwork — it’s the foundation of your rights. Always register your agreements, keep records in order, and consult professionals to avoid future disputes.

Whether you're a buyer, seller, lawyer, or real estate consultant — this judgment reiterates a basic but powerful truth: No registration, no protection.

People Also Read: How To Report Cyber Blackmailing In India

What Is Doxxing?

Doxxing is the act of collecting and publicly posting someone’s sensitive personal information, such as:

1. Full name

2. Residential address

3. Contact numbers

4. Email ID

5. Financial details (bank account, Aadhaar, PAN)

6. Employer/workplace

7. Photos, videos, or private chats

Unlike hacking, doxxing usually doesn’t involve breaking into a computer. Instead, perpetrators use public databases, social media, or data breaches to collect and publish sensitive information—often to threaten, harass, or silence victims.

People Also Read: Cyber Bullying Law Everything You Need To Know

Why Do People Doxx Others?

People engage in doxxing for various reasons, many of which are malicious. Here are the most common motivations:

1. Revenge: After personal disputes or breakups.

2. Cyberbullying: To humiliate or intimidate the victim.

3. Political/ideological disagreements: Often targeting activists, whistleblowers, or journalists.

4. Trolling: For amusement or group vendettas.

5. Misinformation or mistaken identity: Where innocent people are wrongly targeted.

Regardless of the motive, the harm inflicted is often severe and lasting.

People Also Read: Can Facebook Post Or Tweet Attract Criminal Liability

The Harm Caused by Doxxing

Doxxing can lead to both emotional trauma and real-world consequences, such as:

1. Threats or harassment (via phone, email, or in-person)

2. Loss of employment

3. Physical stalking or assault

4. Mental health damage: anxiety, depression, PTSD

5. Identity theft or financial fraud

6. Damage to personal and professional reputation

Because of these severe outcomes, victims often turn to the law for protection and redress.

Is Doxxing Illegal in India?

India does not yet have a standalone law criminalizing “doxxing” by name. However, several legal provisions under Indian law can apply:

1. Information Technology Act, 2000

• Section 66E: Punishes violation of privacy by capturing, publishing, or transmitting images of a private area.

• Section 67: Deals with publishing or transmitting obscene material online.

• Section 72: Covers the breach of confidentiality and privacy by intermediaries or platforms.

2. Indian Penal Code (IPC)

• Section 354D: Stalking, including online stalking.

• Section 499 & 500: Defamation (civil and criminal).

• Section 503: Criminal intimidation.

• Section 507: Anonymous criminal intimidation.

• Section 509: Words, gestures, or acts intended to insult modesty.

3. Right to Privacy

The Supreme Court of India’s 2017 judgment in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy vs. Union of India affirmed the right to privacy as a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution.

Hence, doxxing that violates someone’s privacy can be a constitutional violation as well.

Can You Sue Someone for Doxxing?

Yes, victims can file a civil lawsuit for damages and injunctive relief. Here’s how:

A. Civil vs. Criminal Action

• Criminal action: File a police FIR under IPC and IT Act sections. Punishment includes jail, fines.

• Civil lawsuit: Sue for damages (monetary compensation), restraining orders (injunction), and removal of content.

Requirements to Sue for Doxxing

To succeed in a civil lawsuit, you’ll generally need to prove the following:

1. Proof of Harm

You must show that the doxxing caused one or more of the following:

1. Mental trauma (supported by medical/psychological reports)

2. Financial losses (identity theft, job loss)

3. Physical danger (threats, stalking)

4. Reputation damage

2. Identification of the Doxxer

This is often the hardest part, especially if they used anonymous usernames or VPNs. But you can:

1. File complaints to platforms for IP disclosure.

2. Seek court orders/subpoenas to compel disclosure from ISPs or social media.

3. Evidence of Doxxing

Collect:

1. Screenshots of doxxed content

2. Links to websites or posts

3. Date and time stamps

4. Threatening messages, comments, emails

5. Witness accounts (if available)

The stronger your documentation, the more persuasive your claim in court.

How to File a Civil Lawsuit for Doxxing in India

Here’s a step-by-step guide:

Step 1: Report the Incident

1. Report to the cybercrime cell at https://cybercrime.gov.in

2. Report to the website or social media platform (Facebook, X, Reddit, etc.)

3. Request takedown/removal

Step 2: File a Police Complaint (FIR)

Visit your local police station or cyber police station and file an FIR under relevant sections (IPC + IT Act). Provide:

1. Evidence of doxxing

2. Screenshots

3. Your identity proof

Step 3: Consult a Cyber Law Expert

A lawyer specializing in internet law or data privacy can:

• Evaluate your case

1. Draft legal notices

2. Send cease-and-desist letters

3. File suit in civil court

Step 4: File the Lawsuit in Civil Court

Your lawyer will file:

1. Civil suit for damages and injunction

2. Application for interim relief: urgent orders to stop further spread of data

You can file in the District Court or High Court, depending on the jurisdiction and relief sought.

People Also Read: What Is the Punishment for Cyberbullying in India?

What Compensation Can You Claim?

A successful lawsuit may grant:

1. Compensatory Damages

1. Medical expenses (if caused stress-related illness)

2. Job loss or loss of income

3. Psychological treatment costs

2. Punitive Damages

To punish the offender and serve as a warning to others.

3. Injunctions

1. Court order to delete/remove published data

2. Stop the doxxer from repeating the act

4. Restitution of Reputation

1. Apology or public clarification by the offender

2. Deletion of defamatory material

What If the Doxxer Is Anonymous?

Even if you don’t know who doxxed you:

1. Your lawyer can issue notices to websites and social media platforms under IT Rules, 2021, seeking user data.

2. Platforms must respond within a defined period (usually 36 hours).

3. You can get court orders for discovery of identity via IP address.

Other Legal Issues Related to Doxxing

1. Defamation

If the doxxed content includes false or defamatory statements, you can file for:

• Civil Defamation: damages

• Criminal Defamation: IPC Section 500 (punishable with imprisonment)

2. Invasion of Privacy

Publishing private facts without consent—even if true—is legally actionable.

3. Cyberbullying/Harassment

Repeated targeting through messages, emails, or public posts may also constitute harassment under IPC and IT laws.

4. Identity Theft or Fraud

If personal details are used to impersonate you for fraud or transactions, Section 66C of the IT Act applies.

How to Protect Yourself from Doxxing

1. Lock Down Privacy Settings

Make all social media accounts private. Avoid posting sensitive information online.

2. Use Strong Passwords & 2FA

Use a password manager and enable two-factor authentication on all platforms.

3. Monitor Your Digital Footprint

Regularly search your name and email address on search engines to check for exposure.

4. Use a VPN

Mask your IP address while browsing to reduce traceability.

5. Opt-Out of Data Broker Sites

Use services like DeleteMe or Incogni to remove your data from data collection sites.

What If You’ve Been Doxxed But Don’t Want to Sue?

Not everyone wants to go through litigation. Here are some alternative steps:

A. Takedown Requests

File takedown requests with search engines (Google’s “Right to be Forgotten” form) or directly with platforms.

B. Law Enforcement Involvement

In case of threats or stalking, report to local police or cyber cell.

C. Seek Counseling

Doxxing can trigger trauma. Consult a licensed mental health professional.

D. Digital Hygiene

Update privacy settings and use digital safety tools (like email aliasing or secure messaging apps).

International Perspectives: Is Doxxing Illegal Elsewhere?

• United States: No uniform federal law, but state laws (California, Texas) and stalking laws apply.

• UK: Covered under Malicious Communications Act and Data Protection laws.

• European Union: Violates GDPR due to non-consensual data processing.

• Canada: Covered under Criminal Code, especially sections dealing with harassment and identity theft.

India may benefit from a clear, standalone law targeting doxxing, as seen in other jurisdictions.

Final Thoughts

Doxxing is not just an online nuisance—it’s a serious threat to your safety, dignity, and mental well-being. Fortunately, the law does offer ways to fight back.

Filing a civil lawsuit can help victims seek justice, recover damages, and stop the spread of harmful information. While the process may be complex, a knowledgeable lawyer and proper documentation can greatly improve your chances of success.

Your privacy matters. Take it seriously—and don’t hesitate to assert your rights if violated.