Adani-Hindenburg : Newspaper Articles & OCCRP Report Not Conclusive Proof To Doubt SEBI Probe, Says Supreme Court
While declining to order an investigation by a Special Investigation Team (SIT) into allegations levelled against the Adani Group in the Hindenburg Research report, the Supreme Court on Wednesday (January 3) refused to accept the reports published by newspapers and the Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project (OCCRP).The three-Judge bench of Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud,...
While declining to order an investigation by a Special Investigation Team (SIT) into allegations levelled against the Adani Group in the Hindenburg Research report, the Supreme Court on Wednesday (January 3) refused to accept the reports published by newspapers and the Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project (OCCRP).
The three-Judge bench of Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra observed that reports of independent groups or investigative persons may act as inputs before the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) or the Expert Committee, but cannot be relied upon as conclusive proof to challenge adequacy of SEBI's investigation.
The Bench opined that reliance on newspaper articles and reports by third-party organizations to question the comprehensive investigation by a specialised regulator (like SEBI) does not inspire confidence.
"The reliance on newspaper articles or reports by third-party organizations to question a comprehensive investigation by a specialised regulator does not inspire confidence. Such reports by independent groups or investigative people by newspapers may act as inputs before the SEBI or the Expert Committee. However, they cannot be relied upon as conclusive proof of the inadequacy of the investigation by SEBI. Nor can the petitioners say that such inputs be regarded as credible evidence."
It added that the petitioners could not be heard to say that inputs contained in reports of independent groups or investigative persons be regarded as credible evidence.
"The veracity of the inputs and their sources must be demonstrated to be unimpeachable. The petitioners cannot assert that an unsubstantiated report in the newspaper should have precedence over an investigation by a statutory regulator whose investigation has not been cast into doubt on the basis of cogent material or evidence," observed the Bench.
Other reports about the judgment can be read here.
Case Title : Vishal Tiwari v. Union of India W.P.(C) No. 162/2023 and connected cases.
Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 2