SEBI has dismissed the report as unreliable, coming from a "foreign non-profit (NGO)"
The Supreme Court on Friday raised tough questions against petitioners in the case linked to a report by a George Soros-funded group that targeted the Adani Group. "Why must we take foreign reports as the truth? We are not rejecting the report, but we need proof. So what proof do you have against the Adani Group?" Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud told the petitioner's lawyer Prashant Bhushan. "A publication's work can't be treated as a gospel of truth," Chief Justice Chandrachud said.
The Organised Crime and Corruption Reporting Project (OCCRP), funded by billionaire George Soros, had alleged insider trading in the Adani Group via two foreign investors. The Adani Group has called them "recycled allegations" and another concerted bid by Soros-funded interests supported by a section of the foreign media to revive the "meritless Hindenburg report".
Experts speak to NDTV on the development:
"The Supreme Court very rightly pointed out three important questions to the petitioner's counsel. The court said look, when you take information from random public places, you should check it. It is easy to make allegations cooked up outside this country... The expert committee set up by the Supreme Court has already said there is no evidence of regulatory failure. They (petitioners) are relying on newspaper reports and other material, but where is the evidence? The report (by the George Soros-backed group) was meant to destabilise the country." - Ashwani Dubey, lawyer, Supreme Court.
"What the Supreme Court said is that the petitioners had approached the court on the basis of the Hindenburg report... Essentially, what is happening is that after the court appointed the panel, the petitioners have now come up with questioning the integrity of the panel members, which the court today said is not correct. The Congress party has been raising the issue on many platforms. I don't see this gaining any traction... This has the potential of becoming Rafale 2.0 for the Congress by barking up the wrong tree... When the petitioners are talking about the integrity of the panel and conflict of interest, they should also be wary of the conflict of interest of the people who prepared the (Hindenburg) report. So we can't give clean chit to the people who have prepared the report. They don't have honest intention. This report was predominantly used by shortsellers to make money. The SEBI has regulations to protect the interest of small investors..." - Amitabh Tiwari, political analysts.
"Given a choice, I would say that one can't file false charges against anybody, but levelling charges against regulated institutions and statutory bodies is more serious. Anybody and anyone who does this should have concrete proof. The court was very clear the charges levelled have no basis. The intent and timing of the report was suspicious, I have been saying from the start..." - JN Gupta, former executive director, SEBI.
"... They (petitioners) are asking for a fishing inquiry. It is never permitted in a court, that they make an allegation and we go and find evidence. That kind of thing is never permitted in court. This was exactly politically motivated. The credibility of SEBI was upheld. It is doing a perfect job... Hindenburg, we all know, is a short seller, who targeted Adani. We need to be careful. You also saw Mahua Moitra matter where Adani was targeted..." - Desh Ratan Nigam, lawyer, Supreme Court.