Earlier this month, following a police complaint about unauthorised Nifty options trades in a client account, National Clearing Ltd.—the clearing corporation linked to NSE—withheld payouts worth roughly Rs 78 crore. The freeze affected hundreds of brokers.
The immediate operational dispute will eventually get resolved. The more important question is institutional: Do trades executed on a stock exchange guarantee settlement? This is not merely a question about one broker, one complaint, or one clearing member. It goes to the heart of what a stock exchange is supposed to guarantee. Market participants can tolerate price volatility more easily than uncertainty about whether trades will settle correctly and on time.
Settlement as the foundation of exchange trading
Modern exchanges are built around the principle of settlement finality. Once a trade is validly executed on the exchange, the clearing corporation steps in as the legal counterparty to both sides through novation. The original buyer no longer depends on the solvency or conduct of the original seller; both now face the clearing corporation. This institutional arrangement is what makes anonymous electronic trading possible at scale.
A trader buying Nifty options does not know who sits on the opposite side of the trade. Nor should they need to know. Confidence in anonymous markets depends on the confidence that the clearing and settlement framework will survive disputes involving individual participants. When that confidence weakens, transaction costs rise everywhere and exchange trading breaks down.
India’s securities market reforms of the 1990s and early 2000s were, in important respects, an attempt to move away from precisely such settlement uncertainty. Under the old “badla” system that prevailed on the Bombay Stock Exchange, settlement obligations were frequently rolled over rather than conclusively discharged. Brokers could defer settlement by paying a financing charge determined in the market. Counterparty risk accumulated within the system, and settlement failures were common during periods of stress. The transition to rolling settlement, central counterparty clearing, and exchange-traded derivatives was meant to solve this problem. The objective was not merely faster settlement. It was the creation of a market where participants could transact anonymously without needing to constantly evaluate the solvency or conduct of counterparties.
Also read: Ghost of the Commodities Controller—why India’s new financial law feels like the 1970s
Recent settlement failures
A series of recent settlement failures in Indian securities markets warrants serious concern. In 2019, broking firm Allied Financial Services allegedly stole its clients’ mutual fund units to post collateral for a large Nifty options position. The said securities were subsequently frozen by the Economic Offences Wing. IL&FS Securities, which acted as the clearing member for Allied, applied for an annulment of the trades in question on the basis that the collateral it received in good faith had been frozen.
The HDFC Bank foreign ownership episode of 2017 exposed a related institutional tension. Foreign portfolio investment limits in HDFC Bank were breached during market trading hours. RBI directed that some trades executed after the breach should not settle. The episode highlighted something more fundamental: Capital controls tend to run counter to the logic of anonymous, high-speed exchange trading.
Recent technical failures in exchange infrastructure have exposed another dimension of the same problem. The 2021 NSE trading halt disrupted trading for several hours after failures in telecom and storage systems affected NSE Clearing’s risk management infrastructure. More recently, technical problems at NSDL delayed settlement and inter-depository transfers, affecting the timely credit of securities to investors’ demat accounts. These incidents were operational rather than regulatory in origin. But they underscore the same institutional point: Modern financial markets depend critically on confidence in clearing and settlement infrastructure.
Also read: SEBI does not need unlimited powers – here’s what’s wrong with the Securities Markets Code
State intervention in trade settlement
The recent NSE episode is troubling because the trigger was a police complaint rather than a judicial or regulatory determination. A police complaint is merely an allegation. It does not involve adjudication, evidentiary scrutiny, or a finding of wrongdoing. That distinction matters. In most legal systems, extraordinary interference with settled market transactions generally requires correspondingly high institutional thresholds. Otherwise, enforcement uncertainty begins spilling into the trading process itself.
Such ex-post intervention in trade settlement creates three concerns.
First, legal uncertainty increases. Participants begin internalising the possibility that even correctly executed trades may later become vulnerable to external intervention because of disputes involving one counterparty.
Second, contagion spreads quickly through clearing systems. In tightly interconnected derivatives markets, interventions directed at one participant inevitably affect many others who had no connection to the underlying allegation. Nifty options markets function at enormous scale with highly interconnected positions, rapid turnover, and substantial leverage embedded in clearing systems. Settlement disruptions in such environments create risks that extend well beyond the original dispute.
Third, and perhaps most importantly, low-threshold interventions create vulnerability to state overreach. India’s enforcement architecture is fragmented across police authorities, sectoral regulators, economic offences wings, and investigative agencies. Once police complaints become sufficient to disrupt settlement processes, the scope for arbitrary or politically motivated intervention expands considerably.
A broker accused of fraud can face criminal prosecution, regulatory sanctions, disgorgement, suspension, or asset attachment. But the clearing corporation’s guarantee to unrelated counterparties is generally expected to remain intact. The moment enforcement actions begin interfering with settlement certainty itself, the exchange’s core institutional role starts weakening.
Casually empowering state intervention toward trades executed on an exchange is visible even in ongoing legislative reform efforts. The draft Securities Markets Code Bill proposes granting SEBI broad powers to annul trades executed on the exchange, declare transactions void or modify the rights arising from securities transactions in certain circumstances. As one of us argued in ThePrint earlier, such powers severely undermine the role settlement finality plays in modern financial markets.
Also read: The Social Stock Exchange is India’s answer to inequality
Speed vs predictability in trade settlement
India often takes understandable pride in having moved to a T+1 settlement cycle even while several advanced markets continue to operate on T+2 systems. Faster settlement does reduce counterparty exposure and improve capital efficiency.
But in market design, predictability matters more than speed. Settlement can be slow without seriously damaging market confidence. Settlement uncertainty, by contrast, is far more corrosive. A T+1 system where market participants fear ex-post disruption from technical failures, regulatory interventions, or stray enforcement actions may ultimately prove less credible than a slower but more predictable settlement framework.
India’s market regulators have spent three decades building institutional confidence in exchange infrastructure: Dematerialisation, rolling settlement, central counterparty clearing, sophisticated margining systems, and compressed settlement cycles. These reforms helped move Indian markets away from relationship-based trading toward impersonal institutional markets.
This architecture ultimately rests on one simple expectation: If a trade is executed on the exchange, settlement will occur. Clearing corporations and exchanges can perform their function only when market participants believe that executed trades will not subsequently become vulnerable to discretionary reversal by multiple arms of the state.
Once that confidence weakens, the costs do not remain confined to a single dispute or intermediary. They begin affecting liquidity, pricing efficiency, participation, and ultimately the credibility of the market itself.
Ajay Shah is a researcher at XKDR Forum. Bhargavi Zaveri-Shah is the co-founder and CEO of The Professeer. She tweets @bhargavizaveri. Views are personal.
(Edited by Theres Sudeep)