Supreme Court Scolds Petitioner For Confusing Previous SEBI Investigations With Hindenburg Case
During a recent court hearing, the Supreme Court criticized the petitioner in the Hindenburg case for confusing previous investigations conducted by the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) in 2016 and 2020 with the current case. The petitioner demanded that SEBI disclose the outcomes of its investigations from those years.
Tushar Mehta, the lawyer representing SEBI, strongly objected to this demand, pointing out that the previous investigations involved 51 Indian firms that had no connection to the Adani Group. He emphasized that the petitioner cannot arbitrarily link the 2016 and 2020 cases to the Hindenburg report, as they are entirely separate matters. Mehta informed the Supreme Court that the 2016 investigation focused on different issues and had no relevance to the current Hindenburg case.
Chief Justice DY Chandrachud agreed with Mehta's objection. When the petitioner's lawyer, Prashant Bhushan, requested access to the reports of the 2016 and 2020 SEBI investigations, Chief Justice Chandrachud clarified that the court was solely focused on the Hindenburg case. He explained that the 2016 probe related to the issuance of global depository receipts (GDR), while the 2020 probe concerned the violation of the minimum public shareholding (MPS) rule.
