Supreme Court questions petitioners over Adani allegations from foreign reports

New Delhi: The Supreme Court directed challenging inquiries towards the petitioners in a case linked to accusations against the Adani Group highlighted in a report funded by George Soros.

Chief Justice DY Chandrachud raised significant doubts about the validity of foreign reports, demanding concrete evidence substantiating the claims against the Adani Group.

"Why must we take foreign reports as the truth? We are not rejecting the report, but we need proof. So what proof do you have against the Adani Group?" Chief Justice Chandrachud emphasised, addressing the petitioner's lawyer Prashant Bhushan. "A publication's work can't be treated as a gospel of truth," CJI added, reflecting the court's scepticism.

The allegations, originating from the Organised Crime and Corruption Reporting Project (OCCRP) funded by George Soros, implicated insider trading within the Adani Group through two foreign investors.

The Adani Group dismissed these allegations as "recycled" and part of a concerted effort by Soros-backed interests, aided by sections of the foreign media, to revive baseless claims from the "meritless Hindenburg report."

India's capital markets regulator, SEBI, discredited the report as unreliable, highlighting its origin from a "foreign non-profit (NGO)."

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing SEBI, criticised the trend of influencing Indian policies based on foreign reports, asserting, "What will our agencies do if we act on such reports? There is a new trend of influencing Indian policies by foreign reports."

SEBI disclosed its attempts to gather more information from OCCRP, but the George Soros-funded NGO redirected the regulator to a group managed by Prashant Bhushan, triggering accusations of a conflict of interest.

Following the Supreme Court's directive, SEBI initiated an investigation into 24 suspected transactions, having completed scrutiny on 22 cases. Information from foreign agencies is awaited for the remaining two cases.

The Supreme Court further dismissed Prashant Bhushan's argument that questioned the credibility of a court-appointed committee overseeing India's investor protection regulatory mechanism. Refuting Bhushan's contention about certain committee members' connections with the Adani Group, the court defended the integrity of the committee, emphasising its role in ensuring fairness.

The committee's report submitted in May to the Supreme Court absolved the Adani Group of any wrongdoing, affirming the absence of regulatory lapses by SEBI and dismissing claims of price manipulation, asserting the conglomerate's efforts in supporting retail investors amid market turbulence post the Hindenburg report's release.