UDCPR | Municipal Authorities Empowered To Grant Relaxation For Recreational Open Spaces In Redevelopment Projects: Bombay High Court Appellate Court Can Enhance Compensation Under Motor Vehicles Act Even Without Cross-Appeal By Claimants: Allahabad High Court State Instrumentalities Cannot Supplement Reasons For Withholding Public Money Via Affidavits Years Later: Calcutta High Court Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act | Victim's Status As 'Illegal Immigrant' Does Not Dilute Offence Or Shield Perpetrator: Bombay High Court Clubbing Of Criminal Trials | No Basis To Direct Consolidation If Connected Proceedings Have Already Concluded: Delhi High Court IBC ‘Clean Slate’ Principle Cannot Extinguish Pre-existing Crystallized Liability Under Labour Awards: Bombay High Court Section 406 IPC | 'Donation' Does Not Constitute 'Entrustment'; Criminal Prosecution Quashed In Absence Of Aggrieved Victim: Delhi High Court Failure To Deliver Possession Of Plot Constitutes "Continuous Wrong" Giving Rise To Recurrent Cause Of Action Under Consumer Protection Act: Delhi State Commission High Court Cannot Entertain Writ Petition Under Article 226 When Statutory Appellate Remedy Under Section 107 CGST Act Is Available: Gujarat High Court Appointment Of Temple Servants Is The Exclusive Prerogative Of The Hereditary Trustee: Kerala High Court Stay Of Suit Proceedings Under CPC Does Not Automatically Bar Adjudication Of Pending Temporary Injunction Application: Rajasthan High Court Section 136A MV Act | Supreme Court Directs States To Impound Vehicles With Unpaid E-Challans And Mandates Electronic Enforcement Compliance Section 115 CPC | Executing Court Cannot Dismiss Execution Petition On Hyper-Technical Grounds Regarding LRs Of Judgment Debtor: Himachal Pradesh High Court Succession Act | Will Not Validly Executed If Attesting Witness Admits Signing Without Witnessing Testator’s Signature: Madras High Court High Court Cannot Interfere Under Article 227 To Correct Errors Of Fact Or Act As An Appellate Court: Madhya Pradesh High Court Advocates Act 1961 | Bar Council Has No Power To Suspend Advocate Pending Disciplinary Enquiry: Allahabad High Court Identification Of Accused By Police Personnel In Pitch Darkness Without Prior Acquaintance Is Unreliable: Himachal Pradesh High Court Body Shaming Or Insulting Physical Appearance Does Not Per Se Constitute Offence Under Section 509 IPC: Karnataka High Court Drishyam 3 | Interim Injunction To Restrain Film Release Cannot Be Granted Without Establishing Clear Subsisting Legal Right: Madras High Court Town Planning Scheme | Statutory Notice To Occupiers Under Rule 12(2)(a) Punjab Municipal Rules Is Mandatory And Independent Of Notice To Owner: Punjab & Haryana High Court

Courts Must Not Substitute Their Wisdom Over Regulatory Policies: Supreme Court Upholds SEBI’s Regulatory Framework in Adani Group Judgment

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant judgment, the Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, upheld the wide-ranging regulatory powers of the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) amidst scrutiny over its investigation into the Adani Group. The bench, which also included Justices J.B. Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, emphasized the limited scope of judicial intervention in matters of regulatory policy, stating, “The court must refrain from substituting its own wisdom over the regulatory policies of SEBI.”

The judgment came after a series of writ petitions raised concerns about market volatility and investor wealth, particularly following a report by Hindenburg Research alleging financial malpractices within the Adani Group. The Court directed SEBI to complete its ongoing investigations into the group expeditiously, noting that 22 out of 24 investigations have already been concluded.

In addressing the broader implications of the case, the Court recognized the essential role of regulatory bodies like SEBI in maintaining market integrity. “Courts do not and cannot act as appellate authorities examining the correctness, suitability, and appropriateness of a policy,” the judgment stated, reinforcing the principle that policy scrutiny is limited to constitutional and statutory compliance.

Further, the Court rejected allegations of conflict of interest against members of the Expert Committee set up to assess market volatility, finding them unsubstantiated. The Committee’s recommendations regarding strengthening the regulatory framework and enhancing investor awareness were acknowledged, and both SEBI and the Government of India were directed to consider these suggestions constructively.

In a significant observation on the role of short sellers like Hindenburg Research, the Court directed SEBI and other investigative agencies to probe any legal infractions in the short selling practices and their impact on the market.

The judgment also stressed the importance of informed investor decisions, highlighting the need for improved financial literacy and effective dissemination of information. The Court called for the implementation of measures to bolster investor awareness, ensuring a robust and efficient market environment.

Date of Decision: January 3, 2024

Vishal Tiwari VS Union of India & Ors.

 

Latest Legal News