New Delhi – The Supreme Court expressed skepticism about the Hindenburg report’s credibility during a hearing on Sebi’s probe into alleged stock market manipulations by the Adani Group. Lawyer Prashant Bhushan, representing a law student, failed to persuade the court to doubt Sebi’s investigation based on the Hindenburg report. The court maintained that it cannot assume the report’s credibility without proper investigation by relevant agencies.
– The Supreme Court questions lawyer Prashant Bhushan’s attempt to cast doubt on Sebi’s probe.
– Bhushan argued that the Hindenburg report provided credible information on Adani Group’s market manipulations.
– The court insisted on relying on investigating agencies to determine the report’s credibility, emphasizing the need for a proper probe.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing Sebi, informed the court that investigations in 22 out of 24 identified cases related to alleged stock market manipulations by the Adani Group have been completed. Show cause notices have been issued after quasi-judicial proceedings initiated by Sebi.
The Chief Justice inquired about Sebi’s measures to protect investors against market volatility caused by short selling. Mehta assured the court that Sebi is working to strengthen the regulatory framework based on recommendations from an expert committee appointed by the Supreme Court.
The bench emphasized the importance of Sebi’s role as a statutory body exclusively entrusted with investigating stock market violations. It questioned the appropriateness of the court constituting a Special Investigation Team (SIT) without sufficient evidence, underlining the need for caution.
Prashant Bhushan relied on newspaper reports to support allegations of stock market wrongdoings by the Adani Group. However, the court dismissed the idea of assuming newspaper reports as evidence and emphasized the importance of Sebi’s quasi-judicial powers.
The Supreme Court reserved its judgment on the matter, signaling a cautious approach to allegations against the Adani Group. The court insisted on letting investigating agencies determine the credibility of the Hindenburg report, highlighting the need for a calibrated response to maintain the integrity of regulatory processes.
