SEBI AIF Third Amendment 2026: New Accredited Investor Routes and Dispute Resolution Rules

SEBI has changed who can walk into India's alternative investment fund market and what happens when an investor and a fund manager fall out. The SEBI AIF Third Amendment 2026 rewrites the accredited investor definition and replaces Regulation 25 on dispute resolution.

Accredited investor, in plain terms: an investor SEBI considers financially capable and informed enough to take on riskier, lightly regulated products. Under the AIF Regulations, 2012, that means someone certified by an accreditation agency or, after this amendment, someone accredited by a SEBI registered or regulated entity that SEBI specifies.

The notification is numbered SEBI/LAD-NRO/GN/2026/326 and is dated 9 October 2026. It came into force on publication in the Official Gazette.

One point of confusion first. This is the Third Amendment of 2026. The Third Amendment of November 2025 was a different document, the one that created accredited investors' only funds. Same ordinal, different law. Anyone tracking the SEBI AIF amendment history should keep the two apart.

Powered by Froala Editor

AIF regulations 2026 have been moving fast. There was an amendment in April, a Second Amendment in July, a GARUDA mechanism for quicker placement memorandum processing, and now this one. Most of that activity has one theme: make the AIF route easier for sophisticated money and harder to misuse.

Accreditation sits at the center of it. An accredited investor in India is exempt from the ₹1 crore minimum commitment that applies to regular AIF investors. Accreditation also unlocks accredited investor-only schemes, large value funds, angel funds, and co-investment vehicles.

The uptake has been fast, but from a tiny base. SEBI's own consultation paper puts accredited investors at 3,820 on 31 July 2026, against 649 a year earlier. As of 31 December 2025, they held AIF units worth about ₹1.91 lakh crore at par value, close to 30% of all AIF investments.

That is a lot of capital coming through a very small door. This amendment widens the door.

Powered by Froala Editor

The SEBI accredited investor criteria, as they stood before this amendment, rested on income and net worth.

An individual, HUF, family trust, or sole proprietorship qualified with an annual income of at least ₹2 crore. The other routes were a net worth of ₹7.5 crore with at least ₹3.75 crore in financial assets, or an income of ₹1 crore with a net worth of ₹5 crore, of which ₹2.5 crore is financial assets. SEBI's framework has excluded the primary residence from net worth.

Bodies corporate and trusts other than family trusts needed a net worth of ₹50 crore. A partnership firm qualified if each partner independently did.

Certain institutions never needed to prove anything. Governments, development agencies, qualified institutional buyers, multilateral agencies, and similar entities are deemed accredited.

Powered by Froala Editor

Two things stand out. The first is a new test. The second is a new gatekeeper.

A securities market exposure route

The amended Regulation 2(1)(ab) adds securities market exposure as an alternative to income and net worth. An individual can now qualify with exposure of at least ₹5 crore. Body corporates, LLPs, and trusts other than family trusts can qualify with ₹20 crore as an alternative to the ₹50 crore net worth test. How exposure is counted will be specified by SEBI.

The look-through for LLPs is worth noticing. It was floated in SEBI's August consultation as a suggestion from its advisory committee, and it made it into the final text. A separate idea, recognising a wholly owned subsidiary on the strength of its parent's net worth, did not.

What counts as exposure is not defined in the regulation itself. The consultation paper listed demat securities, mutual fund holdings, futures open interest, unlisted securities held in demat form and overseas securities market investments. Treat that list as a preview, not the final rule.

SEBI's reasoning is interesting. Its data showed that about 27% of individuals holding ₹5 crore of market assets also trade options, against roughly 7% in the lowest holding bracket. The regulator read that as a proxy for risk appetite. On that basis it estimated around 3.7 lakh investors could become eligible, compared with an AIF investor base of roughly 96,000.

Accreditation by a specified SEBI registered or regulated entity

Until now, accreditation meant going to an agency first and the fund manager second. The amendment adds a second path: accreditation by a specified SEBI-registered or regulated entity, in a manner SEBI will notify.

This is the manager-led route SEBI discussed in August. Under that proposal an AIF manager, portfolio manager, or similar entity could record an investor's status during onboarding, and the status would stay valid for three years across products of the same group. The agency route would remain in place. Investors could not self-certify.

Here I would slow down. The regulation says the manner will be specified later, and I could not find the implementing circular at the time of writing. The three-year validity and the document list (ITR for income, a chartered accountant's net worth certificate not older than six months, and an eCAS or broker statement for market assets) were proposals, not notified rules.

The tension is easy to see. The 2021 framework deliberately put accreditation with independent agencies. A manager who earns fees from an investor's commitment is not independent, and SEBI's own paper says as much. Expect the safeguards, such as a written accreditation policy, record retention, and annual audit, to carry real weight in the final circular.

Deemed accreditation for non-residents

The proviso on deemed accredited investors now names persons resident outside India as defined under FEMA, 1999. The specific references to Category I foreign portfolio investors and sovereign wealth funds were removed, which reads as a consolidation into the wider non-resident category. The wording saying such entities need not obtain a certificate has also gone, so how deemed status works in practice depends on SEBI's follow-up instructions.

How to become an accredited investor in India?

Until the new routes are operational, the process is the established one.

First, check which test you meet. Then apply to an accreditation agency. SEBI recognizes subsidiaries of exchanges and depositories for this, and CDSL Ventures and NSDL Database Management are the accreditation agencies named in market guides. You submit proof such as income tax returns, audited financials, or a net worth certificate, along with a declaration that the information is correct.

The agency issues a certificate. You hand that to the fund manager, who must verify it independently before treating you as accredited.

The manager will also ask for an undertaking. You confirm that you consent to the accredited investor framework, that you understand the product and its risks, that you know such investments may not get the same regulatory oversight, and that you can bear the financial risk. Read that last part slowly. Accredited investor eligibility for AIF participation is a trade. You get access and flexibility, and you give up some protections.

AIF dispute resolution: the new Regulation 25

The second half of the amendment is shorter but may matter more over time.

The substituted Regulation 25 says all claims, differences, or disputes between investors and an AIF or its manager arising from the fund's or manager's securities market activities must go through a dispute resolution mechanism. That mechanism includes mediation, conciliation, arbitration, or a combination, following a procedure SEBI will specify.

Sub-regulation (2) is the sharper edge. Any loss, damage, or expense incurred by the manager or its officers, including the cost of resolving investor disputes, cannot be met out of the AIF's property.

The background explains why. SEBI's July consultation noted that this protection already existed for AIFs set up as trusts, but not for those set up as companies or LLPs. Investors in a company or LLP fund were exposed to the possibility that fund assets could be used to cover a manager's dispute costs. The new text protects the fund's property regardless of structure.

SEBI AIF investor grievance redressal: what the draft circular suggests

The regulation sets the principle. The procedure sits in SEBI's draft circular on online dispute resolution, issued for comments on 23 July 2026. It is a draft, so treat the numbers as indicative.

The draft moves the running of conciliation and arbitration from ODR institutions to market infrastructure institutions such as stock exchanges and depositories. A complaint first goes through SCORES, where the entity has 21 days to respond. For AIFs, the draft says no designated body exists, so an unhappy investor could go straight to online conciliation. Unresolved SCORES complaints elsewhere would move more quickly to conciliation, which SEBI says saves 21 days.

Other details in the draft are investor-friendly. The regulated entity pays the conciliation fee, which the draft sets at ₹6,000, and the investor pays none. A sole arbitrator would hear claims up to ₹30 lakh, and a three-member tribunal above that. An award would be due within three months, extendable by two. If the manager challenges an award, it would have to deposit the full amount interest-free, and the investor could draw interim relief of up to half the award or ₹5 lakh, whichever is lower.

The draft also proposed letting AIF investors choose the dispute mechanism written into their existing agreement, rather than being pushed to the ODR platform. The notified Regulation 25 does not spell that choice out. It may arrive through the circular. If it does not, funds with bespoke arbitration clauses will need to revisit them.

Powered by Froala Editor

The SEBI AIF Third Amendment 2026 does two practical things. It widens the accredited investor definition with a securities market exposure test of ₹5 crore for individuals and ₹20 crore for entities, and it opens an accreditation route through specified SEBI registered or regulated entities. It also replaces Regulation 25, mandating a dispute mechanism and barring managers from passing dispute costs to the fund.

The direction is clear. SEBI wants more sophisticated capital in AIFs, and it wants to define sophistication by verifiable market participation, not only declared wealth. The detail that decides success is still to come in circulars, so anyone planning around the new SEBI AIF rules should read the next set of instructions before acting.

Powered by Froala Editor