In a recent hearing concerning the Adani-Hindenburg matter, the Supreme Court of India addressed allegations of bias against members of the Expert Committee it constituted, particularly focusing on Advocate Somasekhar Sundaresan. Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, leading the bench, labeled these allegations as “unfair,” emphasizing the need for responsibility in making such claims.
The Expert Committee, formed on March 2, was tasked with examining potential regulatory failures by the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) in the Adani-Hindenburg issue and suggesting improvements to the regulatory framework. The committee, led by former Supreme Court judge Justice (Retd.) Abhay Manohar Sapre, included members like Mr. OP Bhatt, Justice JP Devadhar, Mr. KV Kamath, Mr. Nandan Nilekani, and Mr. Somashekhar Sundaresan.
Petitioner Anamika Jaiswal, represented by Advocate Prashant Bhushan, raised concerns over a potential conflict of interest, citing Sundaresan’s past representation of the Adani group in 2006 before SEBI. CJI Chandrachud responded to these allegations, stating,
“Mr. Bhushan, let’s be fair. He was a counsel in 2006. It is not as if he was an in-house counsel of the Adani group or a retainer. Lawyers make appearances in various cases. And you cite an appearance made by him 17 years ago! There has to be some responsibility about allegations you make.”
Bhushan argued that Sundaresan’s involvement in various SEBI committees could also indicate a conflict of interest. However, CJI Chandrachud dismissed this notion, asserting that Sundaresan’s participation in the financial sector law reform committee under the previous government did not disqualify him.
“So? That disqualifies him? He was on the financial sector law reform committee of the previous government!”
remarked the CJI.
Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta also weighed in, noting that Sundaresan had been critical of SEBI, which should not be seen as compromising his impartiality.
Also read- Supreme Court Postpones PMLA Hearing, Citing Upcoming Retirement Of Presiding Judge (lawchakra.in)
“Principally, I would earnestly request for these kinds of allegations to stop. They were selected by the court,”
he said.
The CJI further emphasized the importance of having domain experts on such committees for a more robust analysis, rather than limiting membership to retired judges.
“Mr. Bhushan, this is a bit unfair. Because that way people will stop being in committees we appoint,”
he added.
Bhushan clarified that while the application cited only one appearance by Sundaresan in 2006, he had made several other appearances for the Adani group. The CJI, however, questioned the basis of these unsubstantiated allegations, stating,
“Why should we take these unsubstantiated allegations?…By that logic, no lawyer who has appeared for an accused should become a High Court judge!…It is a 2006 appearance and you say something in 2023.”
The bench reserved judgment in the matter after an elaborate hearing. Notably, Advocate Somasekhar Sundaresan has been appointed as an additional judge at the Bombay High Court, following the Supreme Court collegium’s reiteration of his name, despite earlier objections from the Centre regarding his social media comments on sub judice matters. The collegium defended his right to free speech, stating,
“Expression of views by a candidate does not disentitle him to hold a constitutional office so long as the person proposed for judgeship is a person of competence, merit, and integrity.”
Also read-Supreme Court Issues Notice To Andhra CM Jagan Reddy On Bail Cancellation Plea (lawchakra.in)