The Supreme Court has reserved its decision in the Adani-Hindenburg case. In this hearing held in front of five judges led by the Chief Justice, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta presented SEBI’s side. On the other hand, Prashant Bhushan brought the entire matter before the Supreme Court. After reserving its decision, the Supreme Court also gave many advices. He said that there is no reason to doubt market regulator SEBI, which is investigating the allegations against Adani Group in the Hindenburg report.
He said that there is no fact before the court to distrust the market regulator’s investigation. Along with this, the Supreme Court has said that it is not considering the claims made in the Hindenburg Report as completely based on facts. The bench said that in the absence of any facts before it, it would not be right to constitute a Special Investigation Team i.e. SIT at its level. The Supreme Court has heard the arguments of both the parties in the Adani Hindenburg case and has also reserved its order.
This case is related to the allegations of stock price manipulation and fraud against Adani Group in the Hindenburg Research report released in January. Although the group vehemently denied these allegations, there was a huge decline in the share prices of its companies. The court objected to SEBI being asked to investigate the Adani Hindenburg case on the basis of some media reports. The court said that it cannot ask any regulatory body to accept anything published in the media as absolute truth.
Doubt on SEBI’s role
The bench made it clear that there is no need to accept the things stated in the Hindenburg Report as correct. For this reason the court directed SEBI to investigate. Expressing doubt on the role of SEBI on behalf of one of the petitioners’ advocate Prashant Bhushan, the bench said that it is normal for us to accept something recorded in a report which is not in front of us and whose authenticity we have no means to test. That would be really unfair. Bhushan had said that SEBI had all the information available about the irregularities of Adani Group since 2014. The bench said that SEBI has completed its investigation. They say that now it is under their quasi-judicial jurisdiction. Should they disclose the investigation before issuing a show cause notice?
Why should SEBI be doubted?
On this, Bhushan said that the apex court will also have to consider whether SEBI’s investigation is credible and whether the responsibility of its investigation should be handed over to an independent organization or SIT. On this, the bench raised questions and said that where is the fact before us to cast doubt on the work of SEBI? Along with this, the bench also made strong remarks on accusing two members of the expert committee appointed by the Supreme Court of ‘conflict of interest’. The bench said that you need to be very cautious. It is very easy to make allegations but we also have to keep in mind the basic principle of fairness.
Supreme Court said on raising questions on SEBI
When the bench questioned the credibility of SEBI’s investigation, it said that we have to keep in mind that SEBI is a statutory body which has the authority to investigate violations of stock market rules. Today, is it appropriate for the Supreme Court of the country to say without any facts that we will not allow you to investigate and will form an SIT on our behalf? This will have to be done with great care. Senior lawyer Bhushan said that the media reports published against Adani Group should not be taken into account. On this, the bench said that SEBI cannot accept the material published in the media as absolute truth because it is governed by the constraints of evidence.
Investigation of 22 out of 24 completed
During the hearing, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, who was representing SEBI, said that there is a growing trend of publishing news outside the country to influence things and policies within India. Mehta told the bench that investigation in 22 out of 24 cases related to the allegations against Adani Group has been completed while in two cases information needs to be obtained from foreign regulators. Mehta said that for the remaining two cases we need information from foreign regulators and some other information. We are consulting with them. Some information has been received but for obvious reasons we do not have control over the time frame.
Source: www.tv9hindi.com”