The Supreme Court on Thursday disposed of Mahua Moitra’s SEBI Disclosure Plea, holding that full public disclosure of the people behind Alternative Investment Funds and Foreign Portfolio Investors cannot be ordered under Article 32 when no legal or regulatory framework for it exists.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Thursday (October 29) disposed of the writ petition filed by Trinamool Congress MP Mahua Moitra seeking directions to the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) to publicly disclose the ultimate beneficial owners, last natural persons and portfolios of Alternative Investment Funds (AIFs), Foreign Portfolio Investors (FPIs) and intermediaries in India. The Court held that the relief could not be granted under Article 32 without an existing legal or regulatory framework for the full public disclosure sought, and asked the Union and SEBI to consider her grievances [Mahua Moitra’s Writ Petition Seeking SEBI Disclosure Of AIF And FPI Beneficial Owners].
The matter was heard by a Bench led by Justice B.V. Nagarathna. Advocate Prashant Bhushan appeared for Moitra, while Solicitor General Tushar Mehta appeared for the respondents.
How the case reached here
Moitra first approached the Supreme Court in early 2025. On April 1, 2025, a Bench of Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma allowed her to make a detailed representation to SEBI, after Prashant Bhushan accepted that no specific representation had been made to the regulator. Moitra submitted her representation on May 23, 2025, and SEBI replied on September 19, 2025. When the matter returned before a Bench of Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice R. Mahadevan on October 9, 2025, Bhushan said SEBI’s reply relied on the anti-money laundering rules and did not meet the plea, and the Bench told him to amend the writ petition.
At the next hearing on October 14, 2025, the Bench questioned the purpose of the public disclosure sought, observed that an Article 32 petition cannot operate like a Right to Information application, and said a roving and fishing inquiry could not be undertaken in writ jurisdiction. It asked the petitioner to amend the plea and challenge SEBI’s reply. The amended petition has since been listed several times.
The legal position
Article 32 lets a person move the Supreme Court directly to enforce fundamental rights, and the Court may issue writs including mandamus for that purpose. A writ of mandamus ordinarily compels a public authority to perform a duty that the law already places on it. Where the statute or regulations impose no such duty, courts are generally slow to direct a regulator to frame or enforce a new disclosure regime, and that is the line on which Thursday’s order turned.
Adjournment request
When the matter was called, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta sought time, saying he had not been able to go through the papers, and asked that it be kept after Diwali. Prashant Bhushan pointed out that this was the ninth listing since the petition was amended.
Why is an MP filing this, asks the Bench
Justice B.V. Nagarathna said the petitioner is an MP and the Court wanted to know why she wished to lend her name to the case, adding that the Bench was concerned whether it should examine the issue at her instance.
Prashant Bhushan replied that Moitra is a citizen and, as an MP, better informed than an ordinary citizen, and that she understands the field, having worked for financial companies in India and abroad.
Asked again why she wanted to file the case, Bhushan said she wished to protect innocent investors.
Justice B.V. Nagarathna said that as an MP, Moitra could seek a discussion on the floor of the House, and that seeking the same result through an Article 32 petition was a different matter with its own ramifications.
The judge added that the Court has entertained very good PILs in the past and complimented earlier Benches for nudging the administration towards lawful governance and environmental protection.
Parliament versus the Court
Prashant Bhushan said that for an MP today, even getting a discussion in Parliament on the issue is not easy. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta responded that these were political statements.
When Bhushan offered to file an affidavit on what was happening in parliamentary discussions, Justice B.V. Nagarathna asked him not to enlarge the scope of the case.
Bhushan argued that an MP is in no worse position than an ordinary citizen to bring an Article 32 petition, and that parliamentary discussion cannot substitute a court direction requiring conformity with citizens’ fundamental rights.
Justice B.V. Nagarathna responded that investors are not in the position of ordinary persons who cannot access justice, and that the Court has entertained PILs on behalf of those unable to do so.
Bhushan asked whether an MP could not espouse the cause, stressing that Moitra had not come as an investor but as a citizen concerned about people investing their hard-earned money in the stock market.
A regulator’s role
Justice B.V. Nagarathna clarified that the Bench was not on the merits and was only considering at whose instance the petition should be examined.
You want the court to act as a regulator?
The judge said that if a framework existed and was not being followed, a mandamus could be sought, but described the present situation as a clean slate with nothing in place.
Through these exchanges, the Bench kept its remarks on whether the petition should be examined at Moitra’s instance and on the absence of a disclosure framework, rather than on the merits of the disclosure sought.
The report exchange
Earlier in the hearing, Bhushan sought to show the Court a report that, according to him, explains why SEBI was unable to identify the beneficial owners of funds that had invested in Adani group shares.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta objected, asking why the petitioner was being selective in reading the report.
The order
Disposing of the petition, the Supreme Court said the relief sought cannot be granted under Article 32 without an existing legal or regulatory framework for the full public disclosure sought.
The order notes that investment disclosures by AIFs and FPIs are already made to SEBI or to custodians, which enables regulation, and distinguishes those disclosures from the entity-wise public disclosure sought in the plea.
The Court asked the Union and SEBI to consider Moitra’s grievances in the light of the discussions during the hearing.
Case Title: Mahua Moitra’s Writ Petition Seeking SEBI Disclosure Of AIF And FPI Beneficial Owners (case title and number awaited)
Bench: Justice B.V. Nagarathna-led Bench, Supreme Court of India
Date of Order: October 29, 2026
Appearances: Advocate Prashant Bhushan for the petitioner; Solicitor General Tushar Mehta for the respondents
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
SEO | keyword: Mahua Moitra’s SEBI Disclosure Plea | title: Mahua Moitra’s SEBI Disclosure Plea: Supreme Court Says No Framework For Article 32 Relief | desc: Mahua Moitra’s SEBI disclosure plea disposed of by Supreme Court, which says Article 32 relief needs an existing framework; Union, SEBI to weigh grievances. | slug: moitra-sebi-disclosure-plea | alt: Supreme Court of India building, where a Bench disposed of Mahua Moitra’s plea seeking SEBI disclosure of AIF and FPI beneficial owners.