Adani-Hindenburg Row| Centre Alleges That Prashant Bhushan Moved The PIL Relying On Report Prepared Through His NGO, Without Disclosing Source
|The Supreme has reserved its judgment in a batch of petitions seeking an investigation against SEBI by an expert committee constituted by the Court into the allegations made by the Hindenburg alleging stock price manipulation by the Adani group. The hearing of the batch of cases that spanned over two hours yesterday, witnessed sharp accusations against members of the Expert Committee constitution by the Court in the matter.
During the course of the hearing, Advocate Prashant Bhushan appearing for a third-year law student-petitioner relied on a report by the Organised Crime and Corruption Reporting Project (OCCRP) against the Adani Group and alleged investments via "opaque" Mauritius funds. However, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta appearing for the Centre vehemently objecting to the accusations, questioned the veracity of the report and its source, highlighting Prashant Bhushan’s connection with the NGO.
During the hearing, Bhushan’s reliance on the NGOs report was countered by Mehta saying, “There is some NGO, OCROP, some local NGO milords”.
To which Bhushan while correcting him said, “OCCRP, Organised Crime and Corruption Reporting Project…It is a global organisation”.
“All NGOs are always global NGOs milords”, said Mehta in response.
Tushar Mehta submitted that the NGO had sent a report to the SEBI, and when SEBI sought details of the same via an email, the NGO refused to respond.
However, when allegations were made against the members of the Panel, specifically against the newly appointed Additional Judge of the Bombay High Court, Somasekharan Sundaresan, Tushar Mehta intervened to say, “Something which I didn’t want to say, let me say this now. This OCCRP, this global kind of NGO, who prepared a report, we did not refuse to take cognizance. We wrote to them, that give us the details. The letter which we received from this NGO is- "OCCRP’s policy is not to provide documents that are not provided in the story. We have said what we are prepared to say, however, this document reside with others. My understanding is, you can get the same documents we used from an NGO operated by Mr. Prashant Bhushan”.
“That’s alright”, replied Bhushan.
“No, it is not alright. It is very serious. You are appearing here in a so-called public interest litigation, got some report prepared, and asked the highest Court in the country to take steps based on that report. Without disclosing the source. I didn’t want to embarrass you. This is conflict of interest”, said Mehta in response.
Further, while referring to the applications and the accusations against other members of the panel, Mehta argued, "You should have disclosed that you have got a report prepared, which your client is relying upon now, so-called public-spirited person".
“Would this person be entrusted with the writ of the Court in a PIL? Would your lordships consider even hearing the person…he has problems with the rest of the world”, Metha submitted.
A bench of Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra took note of the allegations against the members of the Exert Committee appointed in the matter while doubting the veracity and legitimacy of the Hindenburg Report itself. It said that everything that is published in the Newspapers (The Guardian, Financial Times) cannot be taken as a gospel truth by the Court and cannot discredit SEBI. The CJI did not take the allegations against the Judge lightly, as he reprimanded the manner and the reasoning of Prashant Bhushan.
While highlighting Somasekharan Sundaresan's appearance for Adani in a matter in the year 2006, the petitioner alleged that the fact that he represented Adani as an Advocate in similar matters, clearly showed his conflict of interest, and thus was not qualified for his selection in the SEBI's panel.
CJI however, refusing to accept the contention said that the selection of lawyers was in fact done by the previous government. “Why should we take such unsubstantiated allegations? He appears once, you say in 2006 and then we are told that the person is disqualified in 2023, 17 years later...Going by this, a lawyer who appears for the accused should never become a High Court Judge. Because you are appearing for the accused there are allegations, all alleged to be committing a violation of law. So then we can presume that there is a presumption of guilt and therefore, you should not even be considered for higher office. Where will you be leading if we accept this…”, Justice Chandrachud further said.
Cause Title: Vishal Tiwari v. Union of India