Abstract

Initial Public Offerings (IPOs) represent a critical mechanism through which companies access capital markets and broaden ownership structures. Effective regulation of IPOs is essential to ensure transparency, investor protection, market integrity, and efficient capital formation. In India, the Securities and Exchange Board of India plays a central role in supervising IPO processes through disclosure norms, eligibility criteria, pricing regulations, merchant banker obligations, and post-listing compliance requirements. Comparable regulatory functions are performed in Australia by the Australian Securities and Investments Commission and in Canada by provincial securities regulators coordinated through the Canadian Securities Administrators. This article undertakes a comparative study of the regulatory oversight of IPOs under these three jurisdictions. It examines the legal framework governing prospectus disclosures, due diligence standards, investor remedies, enforcement mechanisms, and listing supervision. While SEBI has adopted a disclosure-based regulatory model with increasing emphasis on governance and retail investor safeguards, Australia relies on strong corporate disclosure obligations under the Corporations Act, and Canada employs a decentralized but harmonized securities framework. The study highlights both common objectives and structural divergences. India’s centralized regulator enables quicker policy intervention, whereas Canada’s provincial model offers flexibility but may generate fragmentation. Australia demonstrates a balanced approach combining statutory liability and market efficiency. The article concludes that SEBI can further strengthen IPO regulation by enhancing scrutiny of issue pricing, simplifying compliance for emerging companies, and adopting global best practices in digital disclosures and crossborder offerings.

Keywords