The Supreme Court engaged in a rigorous discussion on the credibility of the Hindenburg report regarding the Adani Group of companies, prompting questions on how the court could consider it as a reliable source. Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, leading a 3-judge bench overseeing the Adani-Hindenburg controversy, emphasized the reliance on investigative agencies in matters of such nature.
Expressing skepticism, the bench, which included Justices J.B. Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, emphasized the significance of material evidence casting doubt on the Securities and Exchange Board of India's (SEBI) investigations, a statutory body entrusted with probing stock market violations.
Prashant Bhushan, representing the petitioners, advocated for the formation of an alternative Special Investigation Team (SIT) or a panel of experts to oversee the Adani-Hindenburg inquiry, pointing out that SEBI's investigation reports remain undisclosed.
Chief Justice Chandrachud questioned the necessity of SEBI revealing the investigation before issuing a show-cause notice, emphasizing that SEBI couldn't prejudge guilt without offering entities under investigation an opportunity to present their case.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing SEBI, clarified that the market regulator had concluded 22 out of 24 investigations and the remaining two reports were interim and contingent on information from foreign agencies, making it challenging to determine a time frame.
The court stressed the importance of preventing future losses for investors, particularly due to stock market volatility. Inquiring about SEBI's strategies, the bench sought clarification on measures being taken to safeguard investor interests amidst market fluctuations caused by short selling.
Mehta assured the court that SEBI is actively pursuing legal actions against instances of short selling to protect investors' wealth.
The court, however, made stern observations against pleas demanding investigations into the State Bank of India (SBI) and the Life Insurance Corporation (LIC), citing a lack of substantive evidence to warrant such directives.
After extensive deliberations, the Supreme Court reserved its verdict on the matter, indicating a thorough examination of the complexities surrounding the Adani-Hindenburg controversy and the role of investigative agencies involved.
(With Agency Inputs)
ALSO READ | CJI Says SEBI Cannot Take Action Against Entities Solely Based on News Reports
ALSO READ | Adani-Hindenburg matter: SC to consider fresh status report filed by SEBI on Sep 15
