This research paper aims to delve into the intricate role of profit motive in insider trading charges, specifically focusing on its implications within the Indian judicial landscape. Central to the analysis lies the recent landmark case, Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) v. Abhijit Rajan. This pivotal case has not only reshaped the legal discourse on insider trading in India, but has also spotlighted the inherent challenges and ambiguities of the existing framework. The Prohibition of Insider Trading Regulations, 2015, while presenting a seemingly clear-cut approach, often encounters significant hurdles when practically administered, especially when tasked with establishing direct evidence of information flow. The inherent presumption of culpability, at times, leads to jurisprudential outcomes that challenge traditional legal interpretations. Through an examination of various legal precedents, the paper aims to dissect the multifaceted nature of the intent to profit, alongside the stringent criteria that define what constitutes unpublished pricesensitive information. The Supreme Court’s nuanced interpretation in the SEBI v. Abhijit Rajan case, coupled with the broader implications of its introduction of the motive of financial gain as an element to an insider trading charge, signals an urgent call to reevaluate and potentially overhaul the legal framework in India. This urgency is accentuated in scenarios where the accused’s profit-driven intent remains shrouded in ambiguity or is not overtly discernible. The evolution of financial gain as a pivotal determinant introduces a heightened need for rigorous, fact-based assessments, further complicating the already intricate regulatory landscape. In conclusion, the paper calls for refined insider trading regulations in India, emphasizing a balanced framework to uphold market integrity and prevent the overpenalization of legitimate business practices. It stresses the need for clear criteria to assess profit-driven intent, highlighting the farreaching implications and fallacies of the Court’s recent findings in reshaping insider trading laws.