[ad_1]
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Friday refused to accept sealed cover names of experts as suggested by Union government for including in the committee to be set up to examine Hindenburg-Adani report.
A bench headed by Chief Justice of India, D Y Chandrachud, said that the court would select the experts itself and maintain full transparency throughout the process. “If we take names from the government, it would amount to a government constituted committee. There has to be full (public) confidence in the committee,” he stated.
The Supreme Court further said that it would not set up a committee under a sitting SC judge to inquire into the Hindenburg-Adani incident. However, it said it would set up the committee headed by a retired SC judge.
On February 10, the top court had said the interests of Indian investors need to be protected against market volatility in the backdrop of the Adani Group stock rout and asked the Centre to consider setting up a panel of domain experts headed by a former judge to look into strengthening the regulatory mechanism.
The apex court was hearing the PILs on the recent meltdown in Adani Group shares that was triggered by the Hindenburg Research’s fraud allegations in .
The crucial hearing on the PILs assumes significance in the wake of recent developments in which the Centre agreed to the apex court’s proposal to set up a committee, likely to be headed by a former Supreme Court judge, to look into the regulatory regimes.
Stressing that statutory bodies like market regulator Securities and Exchange Board of India (Sebi) are “fully equipped” and are on job, the central government had earlier expressed apprehensions that any “unintentional” message to the investors that regulatory bodies in India needed a monitoring by a panel may have some adverse impact on the flow of money into the country.
The Centre had told the bench, also comprising Justices P S Narasimha and J B Pardiwala, that it wanted to provide details such as names and the scope of the panel’s mandate in a “sealed cover”.
Stock market regulator Sebi, in its note filed in the top court, had indicated it is not in favour of banning short-selling or sale of borrowed shares, and said it is investigating allegations made by a tiny short-seller against the Adani Group as well as its share price movements.
The top court on February 10 had said the interests of Indian investors need to be protected against market volatility in the backdrop of the Adani stocks rout and asked the Centre to consider setting up a panel of domain experts headed by a former judge to look into strengthening the regulatory mechanisms.
Till now, four PILs have been filed in the SC on the issue by lawyers M L Sharma, Vishal Tiwari, Congress leader Jaya Thakur and Mukesh Kumar, who claims to be a social activist, respectively.
(With inputs from agencies)
A bench headed by Chief Justice of India, D Y Chandrachud, said that the court would select the experts itself and maintain full transparency throughout the process. “If we take names from the government, it would amount to a government constituted committee. There has to be full (public) confidence in the committee,” he stated.
The Supreme Court further said that it would not set up a committee under a sitting SC judge to inquire into the Hindenburg-Adani incident. However, it said it would set up the committee headed by a retired SC judge.
On February 10, the top court had said the interests of Indian investors need to be protected against market volatility in the backdrop of the Adani Group stock rout and asked the Centre to consider setting up a panel of domain experts headed by a former judge to look into strengthening the regulatory mechanism.
The apex court was hearing the PILs on the recent meltdown in Adani Group shares that was triggered by the Hindenburg Research’s fraud allegations in .
The crucial hearing on the PILs assumes significance in the wake of recent developments in which the Centre agreed to the apex court’s proposal to set up a committee, likely to be headed by a former Supreme Court judge, to look into the regulatory regimes.
Stressing that statutory bodies like market regulator Securities and Exchange Board of India (Sebi) are “fully equipped” and are on job, the central government had earlier expressed apprehensions that any “unintentional” message to the investors that regulatory bodies in India needed a monitoring by a panel may have some adverse impact on the flow of money into the country.
The Centre had told the bench, also comprising Justices P S Narasimha and J B Pardiwala, that it wanted to provide details such as names and the scope of the panel’s mandate in a “sealed cover”.
Stock market regulator Sebi, in its note filed in the top court, had indicated it is not in favour of banning short-selling or sale of borrowed shares, and said it is investigating allegations made by a tiny short-seller against the Adani Group as well as its share price movements.
The top court on February 10 had said the interests of Indian investors need to be protected against market volatility in the backdrop of the Adani stocks rout and asked the Centre to consider setting up a panel of domain experts headed by a former judge to look into strengthening the regulatory mechanisms.
Till now, four PILs have been filed in the SC on the issue by lawyers M L Sharma, Vishal Tiwari, Congress leader Jaya Thakur and Mukesh Kumar, who claims to be a social activist, respectively.
(With inputs from agencies)
[ad_2]
Source link
