The Supreme Court upheld the rejection of Advocate Vishal Tiwari’s petition seeking a conclusive SEBI report on the Hindenburg-Adani case. The Court reiterated that third-party reports like Hindenburg’s cannot be considered conclusive evidence and dismissed the plea without imposing costs. This decision affirms SEBI’s investigatory authority over corporate governance issues in India.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court has upheld the Registry’s decision to reject a petition filed by Advocate Vishal Tiwari, which sought a directive for the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) to submit a conclusive investigation report in the high-profile Hindenburg-Adani case. The bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan dismissed the petition, questioning the need for such a plea and deliberating on whether to impose costs on the petitioner before deciding against it.
In January 2023, Hindenburg Research published a report accusing the Adani Group of stock manipulation and financial irregularities. The allegations were heavily contested by the Adani Group, which dismissed the report as “malicious, mischievous, and manipulative,” claiming it relied on “predetermined conclusions for personal profiteering with wanton disregard for facts and the law.”
Earlier this year, the Supreme Court had declined multiple petitions, including one filed by Tiwari, seeking a Special Investigation Team (SIT) probe into the allegations. The Court emphasized that such claims, based on third-party reports, could not be treated as conclusive evidence.
Also Read: Adani Group Stocks Dip as Supreme Court Delays Adani-Hindenburg Case Hearing
Advocate Vishal Tiwari had approached the Supreme Court Registrar, seeking a direction to SEBI to submit a conclusive report on the Hindenburg allegations against the Adani Group. He also sought an investigation into the allegations contained in Hindenburg’s fresh report.
The Registrar rejected Tiwari’s application, citing the Supreme Court’s earlier ruling in January, which had addressed the issue. Challenging this rejection, Tiwari brought the matter to the Court.
However, the Supreme Court dismissed the plea, reiterating its stance from previous rulings. Justice Pardiwala and Justice Mahadevan upheld the Registrar’s decision, adding that
“reliance on third-party reports, such as those by Hindenburg Research or OCCRP, does not inspire confidence to challenge SEBI’s ongoing investigation.”
During the hearing, the bench also discussed whether costs should be imposed on the petitioner for filing a seemingly redundant plea. However, it eventually decided against imposing any costs and dismissed the matter.
In its detailed order from January 3, 2023, the Supreme Court had refused to entertain petitions calling for an SIT probe. It emphasized that reports by organizations like Hindenburg Research and OCCRP could not serve as “conclusive proof” for questioning SEBI’s findings or initiating fresh investigations.
Also Read: Supreme Court Reserves Judgment in Adani-Hindenburg Case, Upholds SEBI’s Probe Integrity
In July 2023, the Court dismissed a review petition challenging its earlier decision, further solidifying its stance against forming an SIT to probe the matter.
The ruling comes in the wake of Hindenburg Research shutting down operations, a move that has raised speculation about a potential India-US joint investigation following the change in leadership in the US.
The Supreme Court’s decision reinforces its earlier position that regulatory bodies like SEBI are competent to handle investigations and that reliance on speculative third-party reports is insufficient to warrant judicial intervention. This ruling could set a precedent for how courts approach cases relying on external reports against corporate entities.
While Advocate Vishal Tiwari’s petition has been dismissed, the spotlight on the Adani-Hindenburg saga continues, given its potential implications for corporate governance and regulatory oversight in India.
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE