The Supreme Court agreed on Monday to the Centre's request to suggest what the proposed committee's mandate might be in light of the Centre's proposal to create an expert committee to recommend measures to close regulatory gaps in order to prevent any loss to Indian investors due to market volatility, as was seen during the Adani-Hindenburg episode.
Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI), the market watchdog, stated in a note submitted to the highest court that it "is already enquiring into both, the allegations made in the Hindenburg report as well as, the market activity immediately preceding and post the publication of the report, to identify violations of SEBI Regulations...including those related to short selling."
The SC had stated on the last date of hearing that it was "thinking aloud" on whether a committee of experts could be established to suggest potential improvements to the regulatory mechanism after hearing two PILs filed in response to the Hindenburg report that alleged fraud and stock price manipulation by the Adani Group.
In response, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, who was representing the Centre, informed the bench of Chief Justice of India D Y Chandrachud, Justices P S Narasimha, and J B Pardiwala on Monday that his "instructions are that existing structure — SEBI and are other agencies — are fully equipped, not only regime-wise but also otherwise to take care of the situation...
However, in response to what Your Lordships suggested as a loud thought, we would have no objection...the government has no objection to forming a committee.
The chairman went on to say that "the committee's mandate would be very very relevant because any unintentional message to foreign or domestic investors that even a regulator or statutory authority requires monitoring by a committee appointed by the country's highest court will have some negative effect on the flow of money." Therefore, if your Lordships would allow it, we can propose the mandate of such committee together with potential committee member name proposals under a sealed cover. We suggest a few names since it would not be acceptable to discuss in open court proceedings, but they would be persons of note and status in their respective disciplines. The opposing side may object, etc., and they may or may not appeal to your Lordships. Therefore, we may file it for Your Lordship's consumption from all proprietary points of view... However, the mandate would be extremely significant.
The bench agreed to the plea about the remit and instructed the SG to bring the recommendations before it on February 17 when it will hear the matter again.
"You accomplish this, and on Friday, you return with a suggested committee mandate...
The CJI Chandrachud assured the SG, "We will think about it and issue an order. The court also understands why the government believes the remit is significant.
Because we do not want to question the abilities of the agencies, particularly the regulator, and the current regime, the SG stated.
"You state what you believe to be the mandate. Then we can change it and think about it, the CJI stated.
Two PILs that were submitted in response to the Adani-Hindenburg scandal have the SC's attention. Short selling has been referred to as a dishonest conduct in one of the PILs.
Comments
Post a Comment