The core of the Adani-Hindenburg conflict is the allegation that the Indian behemoth Adani manipulated stock prices. Two of the four cases were given three months to probe by SEBI by the Supreme Court on Wednesday.
Members of the bench that said it couldn’t limit SEBI’s investigative powers were Chief Justice D. Y. Chandrachud, Justice B. Pardiwala, and Manoj Misra. On top of that, the Supreme Court has decided that, “till now,” there is insufficient evidence to bring Gautam Adani to justice. Of the 24 procedures that SEBI has handled concerning allegations against the Adani group, 22 have been finalized.
No investigative body, including a Special Investigation Team (SIT), was instructed to look into the case by the nation’s top court since the facts do not justify it.
Another development is that the highest court in the nation has directed the government and SEBI to look into the legality of Hindenburg’s market shorting and, if found guilty, to punish the company appropriately.
Being a report from an untrustworthy third party, the OCCRP report cannot be used as evidence. Rather of being moved to another agency, the Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project (OCCRP) shall continue researching the matter, according to Chief Justice Chandrachud’s opinion.
The Supreme Court had already cautioned against taking the Adani Group’s and the Hindenburg scandal’s claims at its faith in its November 24 response to lawyer Prashant Bhushan. The decision upheld that statement.
The market now has more clarity thanks to the Supreme Court’s judgment. The things that investors put their money into should be open and honest. The fact that the court upheld SEBI’s decisions shows that the regulatory bodies are strong, open, and competent to handle complicated financial issues.
In the face of skepticism, the supreme court reaffirms SEBI’s independence. Press articles and other outside groups sowing doubt about the statutory regulator (SEBI) is disheartening. Nevertheless, the nation’s top court determined that insufficient evidence existed to cast doubt on SEBI’s investigation.
The request to have the probe taken over by a Special Investigations Team was rejected by the Supreme Court. In stating that this power should only be used in rare circumstances, the court stressed the requirement of providing suitable and reasonable explanations for its use.
As a result of the Hindenburg tragedy, the Indian government and SEBI were compelled to implement the committee’s recommendations in order to protect Indian investors. The Supreme Court made this decision. During the most recent meeting, SEBI Solicitor General Tushar Mehta said that, out of 24 suspicious transactions, 22 had been thoroughly investigated by the department. On the other two, the agency was waiting for information from foreign authorities.
The Adani Group was approved in May of last year by a different committee that the Supreme Court had convened to review India’s investor protection regulatory structure.
Along with rewriting the Adani Group’s story, this historic ruling clarifies the responsibilities and powers of regulatory bodies in handling intricate financial matters, paving the way for more openness and equity in India’s banking sector.
