Adani-Hindenburg row | ‘Investigative’ news pieces and reports by independent groups cannot be treated as conclusive proof: Supreme Court

Supreme Court rules investigative pieces by newspapers and reports by independent groups cannot be used as conclusive proof of inadequate investigation by SEBI.

The Supreme Court on Wednesday said investigative pieces by newspapers and reports by independent groups cannot be used by petitioners in court as conclusive proof of the inadequacy of an investigation by a specialised regulator.

A three-judge Bench headed by Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud made the observation while dealing with petitioners’ argument against the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) investigation into the Adani Group.

The petitioners had highlighted the Organised Crime and Corruption Reporting Project (OCCRP)’s findings of alleged stock manipulation and accounting fraud against the Adani Group. In August, British dailies Financial Times and The Guardian had reported on the OCCRP investigation.

Also Read | Adani-Hindenburg case verdict: Key takeaways

“The reliance on newspaper articles or reports by third-party organisations to question a comprehensive investigation by a specialised regulator does not inspire confidence. Such reports by ‘independent’ groups or investigative pieces by newspapers may act as inputs before SEBI or the Expert Committee [Justice A.M. Sapre Committee]. However, they cannot be relied on as conclusive proof of the inadequacy of the investigation by SEBI,” Chief Justice Chandrachud observed.

In order for these reports to be treated as “credible evidence”, the court said, the petitioners must demonstrate their veracity and sources to be unimpeachable.

“The petitioners cannot assert that an unsubstantiated report in the newspapers should have credence over an investigation by a statutory regulator whose investigation has not been cast into doubt on the basis of cogent material or evidence,” the court laid down.