A new plea has been filed in the Supreme Court in light of the recent Hindenburg controversy, as the petitioner alleges that the Supreme Court Registrar refused to register his petition. The petitioner is seeking a directive from the top court for the registry to register his miscellaneous application, which pertains to ensuring compliance with an earlier Supreme Court order.
The plea argues that the Hindenburg controversy has heightened the need for the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) to promptly conclude its ongoing investigations and publicly announce the results. Advocate Vishal Tiwari, who filed the fresh plea, is challenging the Registrar’s lodgement order dated August 5, 2024, which rejected his application. Tiwari is asking the Supreme Court to overturn the Registrar’s decision and order the registry to register the application.
The petitioner claims that the Registrar refused to register the application under Order XV Rule 5 of the Supreme Court Rules 2013, citing a lack of reasonable cause. This refusal, the petitioner argues, effectively suspends his fundamental rights and prevents him from accessing the court.
According to the petitioner, the Registrar’s decision contradicts a previous Supreme Court order dated January 3, 2024, which set a three-month timeline for SEBI to complete its investigations. The petitioner contends that this timeline should be strictly adhered to, despite the court using the word “preferably” in its order.
The plea further notes that despite the SEBI Chairperson dismissing the allegations as unfounded and the Supreme Court ruling that third-party reports cannot be relied upon, the situation has created public and investor doubt. In this context, the petitioner asserts that SEBI must swiftly conclude and disclose the outcomes of its investigations.
The plea also references Hindenburg’s claims that SEBI Chairperson Madhabi Puri Buch and her husband were involved in offshore funds controlled by Vinod Adani, the elder brother of Adani Group Chairman Gautam Adani. According to Hindenburg, SEBI has shown a “surprising lack of interest” in investigating these allegations, despite evidence from whistleblower documents. The plea suggests that these funds were potentially used for round-tripping and inflating stock prices.
Additionally, the plea cites a blog post by Hindenburg alleging that just weeks before Buch’s appointment as SEBI Chairperson, her husband attempted to move assets out of her name in anticipation of her politically sensitive role. The plea claims that a later account statement, sent to Buch’s private email, revealed the involvement of the same Mauritius-registered cell allegedly used by Vinod Adani.
