Adani-Hindenburg saga: SC rejects plea seeking review of Jan 3 verdict

The Adani Group-Hindenburg saga has taken a new turn, with the Supreme Court quashing a plea seeking a review of the verdict it had passed in the case on January 3 this year.

In the January verdict, the apex court had turned down the proposal to transfer the probe being conducted by the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI), into allegations against the Adani Group by Hindenburg Research, to either the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) or a special investigation team (SIT).

Anamika Jaiswal, one of the petitioners in the primary case, had filed the review petition that the verdict contained “mistakes and errors”. The plea added the petitioner’s advocate Prashant Bhushan was in possession of fresh material that could furnish sufficient reason for a review.

“Having perused the review petition, there is no error apparent on the face of the record. No case for review under Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Supreme Court Rules 2013. The review petition is, therefore, dismissed,” the Supreme Court Bench of Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra said.

The SC verdict dismissing the review petition had been issued in May but uploaded only on July 15, 2024.

The plea for review had noted that SEBI did not divulge details of the action it had taken, and had merely given an update on the current status of its 24 investigations.

On January 3, the Supreme Court had dismissed a plea by the petitioner asking for a SIT investigation supervised by the court, into alleged market manipulations executed by offshore entities of the Adani group.

Earlier on May 17, 2023, the Supreme Court had directed SEBI to complete its investigations in three months. The securities regulator could draw a contempt plea for concluding its investigations within the stipulated period of time and submit its report by August 14, 2023.

“Despite a deadline given to Sebi, it has failed to comply with the direction of this court and has not submitted the final conclusion/report as per the directions of the court,” an application filed by advocate and co-petitioner Vishal Tiwari stated.