The Supreme Court on Monday rejected an application filed by advocate Vishal Tiwari, challenging the apex court Registrar’s August 5, 2024, order, which had declined to register his previous application related to the Hindenburg-Adani Group controversy.
A bench led by Justice JB Pardiwala dismissed Tiwari’s plea, which sought to challenge the Registrar’s decision not to entertain his request to direct the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) to submit its conclusive investigation report on allegations raised by Hindenburg Research against the Adani Group.
The Supreme Court Registrar had earlier declined the lawyer’s miscellaneous application, citing the absence of a “reasonable cause” for registration. In his plea, Tiwari urged the top court to direct the Registry to accept and register his application for listing before the court.
The petitioner contended that SEBI must complete and disclose the results of its investigation into the allegations, which stemmed from the controversy ignited by Hindenburg’s report. He argued that the Registrar’s decision to reject his application under Order XV Rule 5 of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013, had effectively barred him from pursuing legal remedies, infringing on his fundamental rights.
Tiwari also referenced the Supreme Court’s January 3, 2024, order, which had set a timeline of three months for SEBI to complete its investigation. He emphasized that the court’s use of the term “preferably” did not negate the fixed timeline mentioned in the order.
The petitioner expressed concerns that the delay in SEBI’s investigation, coupled with allegations of inaction, had created uncertainty among the public and investors. He highlighted a blog post by Hindenburg Research, which alleged that 18 months after its initial report on Adani, SEBI had shown a “surprising lack of interest” in probing claims of undisclosed offshore entities linked to the Adani Group. Hindenburg also alleged that whistleblower documents implicated SEBI Chairperson and her husband in funds tied to offshore entities controlled by Vinod Adani, the elder brother of Adani Group Chairman Gautam Adani.
Hindenburg’s claims included allegations of fund round-tripping and stock price inflation, further fueling public suspicion. The petitioner argued that the onus lies on SEBI to conclude its investigation and provide clarity to address these concerns.
Despite these arguments, the Supreme Court upheld the Registrar’s decision, effectively dismissing the application.
(Inputs from ANI)
