"A Makes Allegation Against B...": Supreme Court Lawyer Explains Hindenburg Verdict To NDTV

Supreme Court lawyer Nalin Kohli has welcomed the top court's verdict in the Hindenburg case today and slammed those who had demanded shifting of the probe from the capital markets regulator SEBI to a special investigation team (SIT).

In a huge victory for the Adani Group, the Supreme Court said the report by the OCCRP - an organisation funded by billionaire George Soros, among others - can't be the basis for doubting the Securities and Exchange Board's (SEBI) investigation into the Hindenburg case.

"I think the larger question here is, a set of people for whatever be their motivations, decide to invoke the Supreme Court giving a complete go-by to the fact that SEBI, which is a statutory body... They say remove it (investigation) and give it to a third-party, or so-called independent investigation. SEBI is independent; it's not owned by a private entity," Mr Kohli told NDTV today.

"And what's the basis for this? A report by a third party sitting in America, who may well be following an agenda to destabilise India's markets or do something like that, or gain in some manner from these kinds of sudden reports. So I think that's the big question," said Mr Kohli, who is also the Senior Additional Advocate General of Assam and a BJP spokesperson.

Delivering the judgment today, a Supreme Court bench of Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud and justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra said there were no grounds to transfer the probe to an SIT.

SEBI has investigated 22 out of the 24 cases linked to the US-based short seller Hindenburg Research's allegations. The Supreme Court gave the SEBI three months to complete investigation in the remaining two cases.

"Second, what did the Chief Justice and the Supreme Court say? That SEBI will complete the probe. Obviously, the small investors have to be protected. If there is anything wrong, that's why the statutory agencies come in, and that's why this whole mechanism is in place. So I think running an agenda and using the courts for running that agenda is condemnable and needs to be rejected," Mr Kohli told NDTV.

On whether it might be reported by some people that a part of the order by the Supreme Court seemed to suggest that third-party information is not important, though that's exactly what the Supreme Court has not said, Mr Kohli explained: "So let me break it down in a simple sense. Assume 'A' makes an allegation against 'B', whoever 'A' is, whoever 'B' is. 'A' could have made the allegation under different circumstances - completely false allegations based on untruths, an allegation perhaps based on a suspicion, and an allegation based on information that is correct and truthful. All three possibilities exist.

"Now, if it is based on the truth and correct information, that allegation that 'A' makes against 'B' can be investigated, say in this case the police and the police finds it correct. Now, there are two other circumstances - one is based on falsehood, and one is based on some suspicion. They will not cross the same threshold.

"So what the Supreme Court says, you can't blindly rely. And you certainly cannot be expected to blindly rely on something just because it's published abroad, which I would call, going one step further, colonial mindset. That there are set of people who, the minute it comes from across the borders, when it comes from Europe or America, they take as the gospel truth.

"Whereas the same people will even run down the honourable Supreme Court for its judgment if it doesn't suit them. That's an agenda."

The petitions on the Hindnburg issue were filed by lawyers Vishal Tiwari and ML Sharma, Congress leader Jaya Thakur and activist Anamika Jaiswal. The petitions had claimed the Adani Group inflated its share prices, and that the shares of some group entities had fallen sharply after the report by short-seller Hindenburg Research on January 24 last year.

The Adani Group had termed the report a "malicious combination of selective misinformation and concealed facts relating to baseless and discredited allegations to drive an ulterior motive".