The Supreme Court of India has declined a plea for review of its January 3 verdict, which denied the transfer of the Adani Group stock price manipulation investigation to an SIT or CBI. The bench, including Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud, Justice J B Pardiwala, and Justice Manoj Misra, dismissed the review filed by PIL petitioner Anamika Jaiswal.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court of India has rejected a plea seeking a review of its earlier verdict from January 3, which had declined the transfer of the investigation into alleged stock price manipulation by the Adani Group to a Special Investigation Team (SIT) or the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI).
The bench, comprising Chief Justice of India D Y Chandrachud, Justice J B Pardiwala, and Justice Manoj Misra, dismissed the review plea filed by one of the Public Interest Litigation (PIL) petitioners, Anamika Jaiswal.
In the bench’s detailed order dated May 5, the justices stated-
“After examining the review petition, no glaring errors are evident from the records. There is no basis for a review under Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Supreme Court Rules 2013. Hence, the review petition is dismissed.”
This order underscores the court’s confidence in its initial judgment and its unwillingness to reconsider the case without substantial new evidence or clear errors in the original ruling.
The review petition had been evaluated by the judges in their chambers, following standard judicial procedures. This decision marks a significant victory for the Adani Group, as the Supreme Court had already declared on January 3 that it would not mandate a CBI or SIT probe into the allegations. The court had emphasized that the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) was already carrying out a “comprehensive investigation” into the allegations and expressed that SEBI’s actions “inspires confidence”.
The petitioner, Anamika Jaiswal, had argued in the review petition that there were “mistakes and errors” in the Supreme Court’s original judgment. Additionally, the petition mentioned that new material had been received by the counsel for the petitioner, which purportedly provided sufficient grounds for a review of the verdict. Despite these claims, the Supreme Court found no compelling reason to overturn its prior decision.
ALSO READ: Adani-Hindenburg Case: Petitioner tells Supreme Court SEBI has conflict of interest in probing Adani
The context of the case revolves around accusations of stock price manipulation involving the Adani Group, a conglomerate with significant influence in various sectors. The Supreme Court’s affirmation of SEBI’s role and investigation is a crucial element, highlighting the regulatory body’s capacity and reliability in handling such complex financial investigations.
By dismissing the review plea, the Supreme Court has effectively reinforced its stance that SEBI’s ongoing investigation is adequate and trustworthy. This ruling not only reflects the judiciary’s confidence in SEBI but also sets a precedent regarding the threshold for granting review petitions in cases involving intricate financial and corporate allegations.
the Supreme Court has reviewed its stance on the investigations conducted by the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) regarding the Adani Group. The initial inquiry was triggered by a series of allegations made by Hindenburg Research, which accused the conglomerate of stock price manipulation among other financial discrepancies.
SEBI’s comprehensive investigation into these allegations encompassed a total of 24 cases, with findings on 22 cases completed. Despite this significant probe, details regarding the outcomes or any subsequent actions remained undisclosed initially.
A plea highlighted this lack of transparency, stating-
“The plea stated that the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) had only provided the court with an update on the status of the 24 investigations conducted in response to the allegations. The update indicated whether these investigations were complete or incomplete, but did not disclose any findings or details of actions taken.”
This plea led to a critical examination of a prior judgment from January 3, 2024, which had dismissed the request for a court-monitored Special Investigation Team (SIT) to delve deeper into the alleged fraudulent activities linked to offshore entities associated with the Adani Group’s promoters.
The plea critically noted-
“The petitioner argues that there are clear errors evident in the order dated January 3, 2024, where the court declined the petitioner’s request to establish a court-monitored SIT for investigating a large-scale fraud involving market manipulation via offshore entities owned by Adani Group promoters. Therefore, the petitioner contends that the judgment should be reviewed.”
Before this reassessment, the Supreme Court had issued a verdict on a cluster of petitions concerning the controversial dispute between Adani and Hindenburg Research. The research firm had accused the Indian business giant of engaging in fraudulent transactions and manipulating share prices, which led to severe market reactions. The allegations resulted in a drastic decline in Adani Group’s stock values, often described dramatically as a “bloodbath” on the stock exchanges.
In response to these serious accusations, the Adani Group staunchly refuted Hindenburg’s claims.
A representative from the group stated-
“The Adani Group dismissed the allegations as false, asserting its compliance with all legal and disclosure obligations.”
