Adani-Hindenburg case: Supreme Court refuses to accept centre's sealed cover suggestions; check details

The Supreme Court on Friday (February 17) refused to accept the central government's sealed cover suggestion on the panel of experts to strengthen regulatory measures for the stock market while hearing the Adani-Hindenburg case. The top court reserved its order on the issue related to appointing the committee.

The bench, headed by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud said if the names suggested by the central government were not given to the other party, there would be lack of transparency. The top court said that it would pass orders to constitute an expert committee.

Also read: President Murmu to join Mahashivratri celebrations at Isha Yoga Centre in Coimbatore

Addressing the court, CJI Chandrachud said, "We will select the experts and maintain full transparency. If we take names from the government, it would amount to a government constituted committee. There has to be full (public) confidence in the committee."

"We can't start with a presumption of regulatory failure," the CJI also observed during the hearing. The suggestion on the names of committee members and their powers were submitted in a sealed cover by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing SEBI.

"We want the truth to come out, but it should not affect the market. The court can take a decision on assigning supervision to a former judge," SG Mehta said.

After US short-seller Hindenburg Research accused Adani Group of stock manipulation and accounting fraud, the stocks of Adani Group have taken a beating. However, the Adani Group has denied any wrongdoing and has threatened to sue Hindenburg.

Also read: 'Attack on India': Smriti Irani slams billionaire George Soros for his 'revival of democracy' remark

Earlier, the Supreme Court had said Indian investors had suffered losses running into several lakh crores and suggested formation of a committee of domain experts to put in place robust practices to protect investors. 

The Centre also informed the Supreme Court that it was agreeable to the suggestion to form an expert committee to review the regulatory framework. The bench then asked the petitioners to present their points of view.

Advocate Vishal Tiwari, who filed a PIL, sought the constitution of a committee under the head of a retired Supreme Court judge to investigate the contents of the Hindenburg Research report.

On the other hand, advocate ML Sharma sought to declare 'short-selling' as the offence of fraud.