The Supreme Court declined to order an investigation into the Gautam Adani-Hindenburg case by the SIT or CBI. The Supreme Court rendered a significant decision on Wednesday by declining to direct the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) or a special investigation team (SIT) to look into the Gautam Adani-Hindenburg case. Rather, the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Sebi) has been instructed by the Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud-led SC bench to conclude its inquiry into the final two cases of purported violations by Adani group entities in three months.

The assessment of the reports’ veracity and Sebi’s jurisdiction serve as the main foundations for the court’s ruling. The bench voiced doubts about the veracity of the Hindenburg report on the Adani group’s alleged stock manipulations and the OCCRP report, which is connected to George Soros. The bench stated that these claims cannot be independently checked and should not be taken as true facts.

Moreover, the FPI laws, which the Adani company is said to have manipulated to artificially boost the value of its shares, were affirmed by the Supreme Court. The court upheld the regulations’ lack of any legal flaws by ruling that there was no good reason to overturn them.

In response to counsel Prashant Bhushan’s accusations of conflict of interest against members of the SC-appointed SIT, the court determined that these assertions lacked validity. The accusations were strongly emphasized, but in the end, the Supreme Court dismissed them, so confirming the SIT members’ honesty.

Chief Justice Chandrachud underlined the court’s limited authority to interfere with Sebi’s regulatory structure. He continued, “The power of this court to enter the regulatory framework of Sebi is limited.” This declaration highlights the court’s stance in favor of respecting the independence and subject-matter knowledge of regulatory agencies like Sebi.

The petitioners’ claims that the expert committee members had conflicts of interest were also dismissed by the court. It reiterated that reliance on uncorroborated reports from third parties—like the OCCRP report—cannot be accepted as evidence in court.

The Supreme Court has ordered the government of India and Sebi to look into any legal violations by the Hindenburg report on short selling and to take appropriate legal measures in addition to ordering Sebi to finish its inquiry. The committee’s recommendations to support the interests of Indian investors should be taken into account, the court further stated.

This decision is a turning point in Indian jurisprudence as the Supreme Court has deferred to the knowledge of regulatory organizations such as Sebi and has abstained from interfering in their affairs absent egregious proof of willful and deliberate rule and regulation violations. In addition to preserving Sebi’s jurisdiction, the ruling establishes a precedent for similar cases involving intricate financial issues in the future and emphasizes the value of verifiable information in court.

SOURCE: https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/business/india-business/explained-why-supreme-court-did-not-order-cbi-or-sit-probe-into-adani-hindenburg-case/articleshow/106504163.cms?from=mdr