Adani-Hindenburg case: Plea in Supreme Court seeks review of January 3 verdict

A petition has been filed by petitioner Anamika Jaiswal in the Supreme Court seeking a review of its January 3 decision, in which it refused to transfer the probe into allegations of stock price manipulation by the Adani Group to a special investigation team or CBI. In the decision, the Apex Court had declined to order a CBI or SIT probe, stating in its decision that market regulator SEBI was conducting a "comprehensive investigation" into the allegations against the Adani Group and that its conduct "inspires confidence".

The petition claimed that there were "mistakes and errors" in the judgement, and that certain new material received by the petitioner's counsel provided sufficient grounds for a review of the verdict.

The petition, filed through advocate Neha Rathi, stated that the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) in its report only updated the court on the status of the 24 investigations it conducted in response to the allegations, whether they were complete or incomplete, but did not disclose any findings or details of action taken.

The review petition stated: "It cannot be concluded that there has been no regulatory failure unless the findings of the SEBI investigations are publicly reported."

The Apex Court had noted in its verdict that SEBI has completed its investigation in 22 out of the 24 matters where allegations had been levelled against the Adani Group.

The plea said, "There are apparent errors on the face of the impugned order dated January 3, 2024 wherein this court rejected the petitioners prayer to constitute a court monitored SIT into the massive fraud involving market manipulation through offshore entities owned by promoters of Adani Group. Hence, the impugned judgment is liable to be reviewed." 

Referring to Supreme Court judgement which said that there was no apparent regulatory failure attributable to SEBI, the petition said, "Whereas, there are many instances through which SEBI's regulatory failures are readily apparent. Such failures have eventually contributed to alleged regulatory contraventions and statutory violations." 

The petition called for a thorough probe by stating that the apex court failed to appreciate that while the issue of over-invoicing may have not been proved, the aspect of Adani Group promoters investing in Adani Group stocks in the Indian stock market has never been investigated. 

(With Agency Inputs)