No case for review under Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Supreme Court Rules 2013.
The review petition is, therefore, dismissed,” said the bench, which also included justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra.
The review petition was dismissed on May 8, but the order was made public on Monday.
She asserted that unless Sebi’s investigation findings are publicly reported, it cannot be concluded that there was no regulatory failure.
The court dismissed the reliance on the Hindenburg report or other unsubstantiated news reports as the basis for questioning Sebi’s comprehensive investigation.
The Supreme Court has dismissed a petition demanding a review of its January 3 verdict that refused to order a separate probe into the allegations of accounting fraud and stock manipulation against Adani Group companies, first aired in a report by US short-seller Hindenburg Research in January 2023. The Supreme Court of India. (File)
A three-judge bench, led by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, found no merit in the plea moved by Anamika Jaiswal, who was one of the writ petitioners in the case.
Also read | Hindenburg Research gets ‘show cause’ notice from SEBI over Adani Group report
“Having perused the review petition, there is no error apparent on the face of the record. No case for review under Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Supreme Court Rules 2013. The review petition is, therefore, dismissed,” said the bench, which also included justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra. The review petition was dismissed on May 8, but the order was made public on Monday. Judges consider review petitions in their chambers without holding oral hearings.
Jaiswal’s petition, filed in February. claimed that the court’s judgment contained errors apparent on the face of the record and overlooked the Securities and Exchange Board of India’s (Sebi) regulatory failures, which contributed to alleged regulatory contraventions and statutory violations.
Arguing that the court should not have endorsed Sebi’s investigation without acknowledging the outcomes of the probe, Jaiswal had pointed out that Sebi’s status report merely indicated the completion status of the 24 investigations without disclosing any findings or details on actions taken. She asserted that unless Sebi’s investigation findings are publicly reported, it cannot be concluded that there was no regulatory failure.
Also read | Hindenburg shared Adani report with client two months before publishing it: Sebi
The review plea further sought to re-argue that the legislative amendments made by Sebi in 2018 and 2019, which tweaked the Foreign Portfolio Investors (FPI) regulations, diluted the requirements for disclosing beneficial owners (BOs) and listing disclosures by removing the prohibition against an FPI having an “opaque structure.” The petition contended that the apex court failed to notice the impact of these amendments.
In its January verdict, the top court had concluded that there was no material to show “glaring, willful, or deliberate inaction” by Sebi in its investigation or any suggestion of regulatory failure by the market regulator. The court dismissed the reliance on the Hindenburg report or other unsubstantiated news reports as the basis for questioning Sebi’s comprehensive investigation. It rejected a plea, including one filed by Jaiswal, for the creation of a special investigation team (SIT) to investigate Hindenburg’s allegations, noting that newspaper articles or reports by third-party organisations cannot be treated as conclusive proof of Sebi’s probe inadequacy.
Also read | Kotak Mahindra Group clarifies Hindenburg has never been a client of the firm
The judgment recorded that Sebi had completed investigations in 22 out of 24 allegations against the Adani group, giving the regulator three months to conclude the two pending investigations. It also directed investigative agencies of the Union government to probe whether the loss suffered by Indian investors due to the conduct of Hindenburg Research and other entities in taking short positions involved any infraction of law and to take suitable action if so.
Hindenburg’s report, published in January 2023, claimed “brazen accounting fraud” and “stock manipulation” by the Gautam Adani-led group. Though the conglomerate rejected the report as “unresearched” and “maliciously mischievous,” it triggered a massive rout of Adani group stocks, which lost over $140 billion in days and forced the cancellation of a planned ₹20,000 crore share sale.
A set of petitions filed separately by lawyers and activists demanded a court-monitored probe into the matter by setting up an SIT under the supervision of a retired judge. Some petitioners also questioned the validity of the 2018 and 2019 amendments in the FPI regulations. However, the court judgment rejected the petitioners’ contentions, ruling that the impugned amendments had tightened the norms on disclosure of BOs under the FPI and LODR (Listing Obligations and Disclosure Requirements).
