Innovators Growth Platform: Is SEBI Preparing a New Growth Path for Emerging Companies?

Short answer: SEBI has started to draw one, but it hasn't drawn it yet. On 4 November 2026 it set up a Working Group to review the Innovators Growth Platform (IGP). That is a review, not a rule change, and nothing about listing eligibility has changed. What the announcement does show is where SEBI thinks the gap lies: companies that spend years in research before they earn revenue.

What the IGP is

The IGP is a listing route under Chapter X of the SEBI (ICDR) Regulations, 2018, aimed at issuers that are intensive in technology, information technology, intellectual property, data analytics, biotechnology or nanotechnology.

For comparison, a company that doesn't meet the main board's Regulation 6(1) track record can already list on the main board under Regulation 6(2) with at least 75% allocated to qualified institutional buyers. The IGP is meant to be a lighter alternative.

How we got here

Despite those changes, the platform has attracted little interest. The 2020 consultation paper itself noted that no company had listed, and November 2026 coverage describes limited uptake. That is the problem the new review is meant to address.

What SEBI announced on 4 November 2026

The group. Eighteen members, co-chaired by Srini Srinivasan (Indian Venture and Alternate Capital Association) and Prashanth Prakash (Accel Partners). Members include representatives from biotechnology and deep-tech companies, venture capital and private equity firms, DPIIT, ICAI, ICSI, CII, the Association of Investment Bankers of India, NSE and BSE.

Terms of reference

SEBI says the stated focus is sectors such as deep-tech, biotechnology, semiconductors and space. The Working Group's recommendations go to SEBI for consideration. As reported, the announcement gave no deadline.

Why this review, and why now

SEBI hasn't published its reasoning beyond the press release. These are my reading of the likely pressure points, not SEBI's findings.

1. The 25% filter favours later-stage companies. A requirement that eligible institutions hold a quarter of pre-issue capital for a year effectively means a start-up needs a funded Series B or C round. A research-stage company with seed money and a long development timeline may not meet it.
2. Institution and HNI only. Limiting participation keeps risk away from retail investors, but it also limits the pool of buyers and therefore pricing and liquidity.
3. Post-listing burden. A listed company carries disclosure and governance obligations. For a small company that hasn't earned revenue, the cost may outweigh the benefit.
4. Migration. Venture and private equity investors want a credible exit. Whether a smooth path to the main board exists affects whether they will back an IGP listing.
5. The capital need is long-dated. Deep-tech and biotech companies often need patient capital for years before revenue. A framework designed around technology-enabled service businesses may not fit them.

What the review might consider

Illustratively, the benchmarks the Working Group could look at include the UK's AIM, Hong Kong's Chapters 18A (biotech) and 18C (specialist technology) and Nasdaq's growth segments. The terms of reference don't name any of these. Points that could come up:

• Whether the 25% eligible-investor holding should be lower, shorter or replaced by another quality filter.
• How pricing and allocation should work for companies without revenue, since the terms of reference list public issue, OFS, pricing and minimum subscription.
• Whether post-listing obligations should be proportionate to size.

What has not changed

• No regulation has been amended, and no consultation paper has been published.
• Current IGP eligibility, including the 25% requirement, stands.
• The review doesn't make any private company eligible to list. It doesn't guarantee an exit route for investors either.

What founders, investors and professionals should do

Founders

• Don't build an IPO timeline around the outcome of a review.
• If you're planning a pre-IPO round, structure it with the current 25% and one-year rules in mind, and keep documentation of who holds what.
• Get the cap table, IP ownership, audited financials and governance in order. They will matter under any version of the framework.

Investors

• Think about whether an IGP listing is a realistic exit, and plan for the possibility that rules will change before you reach it.
• Provide input through industry associations. Several of them have seats on the Working Group.

CS, CA and merchant banker advisers

• Track the Working Group's output, which is likely to be followed by a SEBI consultation paper and ICDR amendments.
• Draft a short note for clients that separates what is law today from what is under review.

One link to watch

SEBI's 5 November 2026 circular on accredited investors revises how accredited investors are recognised for AIFs, SIFs and portfolio management services. The IGP uses its own “IGP Investor” category, which was split from the older “accredited investor” label in 2021. Whether the IGP investor definition will track the new accreditation approach is a question the Working Group's investor-framework item might address. That is my observation, not something either document says.

Bottom line

The IGP has existed for years without drawing issuers. SEBI's response is a review aimed at a segment of companies that the current design doesn't fit well: research-stage, pre-revenue and IP-led businesses. A new growth path is possible, but for now it is a map being drawn. The sensible stance for founders and advisers is to prepare for the current rules and keep an eye on the Working Group.