LI Network
Published on: November 25, 2023 at 07:45 IST
In a hearing on the Adani-Hindenburg matter, the Supreme Court expressed disapproval of allegations made by a petitioner against the impartiality of the Expert Committee members appointed by the Court.
Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, heading the bench, deemed the allegations “unfair” and urged Advocate Prashant Bhushan to make such statements responsibly.
The Expert Committee, formed by the Court in March, was tasked with investigating regulatory failures by the Securities and Exchange Board of India regarding the Adani-Hindenburg issue.
The committee, led by former SC judge Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre, included members such as Somashekhar Sundaresan. In May, the committee submitted a preliminary report ruling out SEBI failure and suggesting regulatory improvements.
One petitioner alleged a conflict of interest, citing the association of committee members with Adani group companies. During Friday’s hearing, Prashant Bhushan questioned Sundaresan’s role, stating he had represented the Adani group in various forums.
CJI Chandrachud labeled the allegations unfair, highlighting that Sundaresan’s appearance for the Adani group occurred in 2006. He emphasized the need for responsibility in making allegations, stating, “There has to be some responsibility about allegations you make.”
Bhushan argued that Sundaresan had made many appearances for the Adani group, prompting the CJI to question the relevance of unsubstantiated claims. The Solicitor General of India, Tushar Mehta, defended Sundaresan, stating his criticism of SEBI should not compromise his impartiality.
CJI Chandrachud remarked on the unfairness of such allegations, stating that individuals appointed to committees by the court could be discouraged from participating if such claims persist. After an extensive hearing, the bench reserved judgment on the matter.
Notably, the Central Government recently appointed Somasekhar Sundaresan as an additional judge at the Bombay High Court, nearly ten months after the Supreme Court collegium reiterated his name.
The Collegium reaffirmed his competence, merit, and integrity despite objections based on his social media views.
