Adani-Hindenburg issue: Supreme Court junks review petition to constitute court-monitored SIT

New Delhi [India], July 15 : The Supreme Court has dismissed the review petition against the top court's judgment which refused to constitute the court-monitored Special Investigation Team (SIT) probe into the Adani-Hindenburg issue over allegations of stock price manipulation by the Indian corporate giant.
"Having perused the review petition, there is no error apparent on the face of the record. No case for review under Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Supreme Court Rules 2013. The review petition is, therefore, dismissed," a bench headed by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud said.
Other judges on the bench were Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra.
The petition was filed by one Anamika Jaiswal seeking to review the top court judgement declining to transfer the probe from the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) to a Special Investigation Team (SIT) into the Adani-Hindenburg issue over allegations of stock price manipulation by the Indian corporate giant.
The petitioner has sought a review of the top court's judgement dated January 3, 2024.
Urging to review the judgement, the review petition said that there are apparent errors on the face of the impugned order dated January 3, 2024, wherein the Supreme Court rejected the petitioner's prayer to constitute a court-monitored SIT into the massive fraud involving market manipulation through offshore entities owned by promoters of Adani Group.
According to the petition, 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," read the review plea.
"Because the amendments made to the FPI Regulations, 2014 by SEBI in 2018 and 2019, continuously and decisively, diluted the regulations in three significant ways i) The term "ultimate beneficial owner" in FPI Regulations, 2014 (by the definition of the 2010 SEBI Master Circular) was replaced with the term "beneficial owner". ii) The term "beneficial owner" was redefined as per the Prevention of Money Laundering (Maintenance of Records) Rules, 2005 which mandated 25 per cent shareholding thresholds for identifying beneficial ownership. iii)The term "opaque structure" was deleted altogether from the FPI regulations," read the review plea.
The review application also annexed new documents, evidence and email communications claiming to reveal that Adani group companies have been in flagrant violation of Rule 19A of the SCRR, 1957.
The top court, on January 3, said the scope of power of the apex court to enter into the regulatory domain of SEBI is limited.
It further said the scope of judicial review is only to see whether any fundamental right has been violated. The SC said the facts of the case do not warrant the transfer of the probe to the SIT or another agency. The SC also said there was no material to doubt the investigation carried out by the SEBI.
The verdict of the top court came on a batch of petitions seeking a court-monitored investigation or CBI probe into the allegations made by US-based firm Hindenburg Research against the Adani group of companies regarding violations of the stock market. The bench had also said there has been no regulatory failure by SEBI and the market regulator cannot be expected to carry on its functions based on press reports, though such reports can act as inputs for SEBI.