The Hindu in Hindi: In the Adani case, the Supreme Court needed to investigate rather than review policy actions, read the January 5 editorial.

The Supreme Court should have encouraged it to do more, rather than review policy actions.

A petition was filed against a US-based sort seller company on corruption charges including stock price manipulation at Adani Group companies.

Due to which the decision of the Supreme Court of India on this group of petitions has completely thrown it directly into the court of the market regulator.

The Court, in order to protect the public interest, has chosen to subject the petitioner's appeal to the regulatory policies of the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) rather than the petitions within it itself.

The facts of this case do not warrant transfer of the investigation from SEBI.

save sebi

Surprisingly, the Bench has completely ignored the fundamental questions regarding determination of minimum public shareholding and potential violations relating to related parties, which were raised by the Court-appointed Committee in its May 2023 report on the matter between SEBI and the Court. Was left as is.

Instead the bench has seized upon the petitions which had asked the court to direct SEBI to set aside its amendments to the Foreign Portfolio Investor Regulation and Listing Obligation and Disclosure Requirements.

These changes were at the heart of the petitioners' arguments about regulatory failure, and it said there was neither anything illegal, nor were the rules arbitrary or in violation of the Constitution, rejecting them on that basis. .

The decision did not delve into the allegations made by Hindenburg Research in its January 2023 report, which also did nothing to allay investors' concerns about SEBI's prudence.

Without considering anything regulatory, the Court has clearly stated

The bench has directed SEBI to complete these quickly.

While the Court's reluctance to review the policy actions of a particular regulator is understandable, SEBI's alleged delay in investigating allegations of corporate dishonesty and market manipulation by a large group is not.

At the same time, the watchdog's decision to leave the essential question back to itself signals a degree of judicial restraint that can only undermine the public good.

The Court certainly knows the example of many past cases, where it has found that SEBI is not showing interest in it.

The panel of experts appointed in this case has also stated this aspect. After all, the court should not just be a court, but it should also be visible (justice).

Source: The Hindu