 "Supreme Court sees corporate lobby against Sebi")
The Supreme Court has dismissed many petitions in the past but rarely has the country’s apex court accused the petitioners of being “stool pigeons” of powerful corporate lobbies. That’s precisely what the judges did on Friday in a detailed 87-page order rejecting the case against the appointment of Securities and Exchange Board of India (Sebi) Chairman U K Sinha, a close reading of the judgment shows.
Reacting to the affidavit that talked about action taken by Sebi against “influential and powerful” business houses, including Sahara and Reliance, the court said: “We are unable to easily discard the reasoning. The anxiety of these business houses for the removal of the present Sebi chairman is not wholly unimaginable.” The court also said the petitioner seems to be a surrogate for a “powerful phantom lobby”.
“We have been left with the very unsavoury impression that the petition is more for the protection of the vested interests of some unidentified business lobbies.”
It is ironic that the petitioners’ counsel, Prashant Bhushan, had also alleged before the court that C B Bhave was denied extension as Sebi chairman because of his insistence that investigations are held on complaints against Sahara and RIL, the latter in an insider-trading case relating to Reliance Petroleum in which Rs 500 crore was made in four days of trading in September 2007.
The order, pronounced in open court, said the court could have dismissed the petition as it was not maintainable on several grounds, including “absurd allegations”. In the process, the court also questioned the motive behind many PILs filed with unfailing regularity in courts across the country.
“It is not entirely inconceivable that a petition disguised as “public interest litigation” can be filed with an ulterior motive or at the instance of some other person who hides behind the cloak of anonymity, even in cases where the procedure for selection has been meticulously followed. The petitioner has cleverly distorted and misinterpreted the official documents on virtually each and every issue. In our opinion, the petition does not satisfy the test of utmost good faith which is required to maintain PILs,” the court said.
The apex court had last year issued notices to the Centre and Sebi and also impleaded the President’s secretary, Omita Paul, who was advisor to the then finance minister when the decision to appoint Sinha as Sebi chairman was taken.
Reacting to the affidavit that talked about action taken by Sebi against “influential and powerful” business houses, including Sahara and Reliance, the court said: “We are unable to easily discard the reasoning. The anxiety of these business houses for the removal of the present Sebi chairman is not wholly unimaginable.” The court also said the petitioner seems to be a surrogate for a “powerful phantom lobby”.
“We have been left with the very unsavoury impression that the petition is more for the protection of the vested interests of some unidentified business lobbies.”
More From This Section
The court was ruling on a public interest litigation (PIL) filed in September 2011, challenging the finance minister’s power to nominate two additional members in the selection committee for the appointment of the chairman and whole-time members of Sebi. Filed by a Bangalore resident, Arun Kumar Agarwal, the PIL alleged irregularities in the appointment of Sinha as Sebi chairman and sought that it be quashed.
It is ironic that the petitioners’ counsel, Prashant Bhushan, had also alleged before the court that C B Bhave was denied extension as Sebi chairman because of his insistence that investigations are held on complaints against Sahara and RIL, the latter in an insider-trading case relating to Reliance Petroleum in which Rs 500 crore was made in four days of trading in September 2007.
The order, pronounced in open court, said the court could have dismissed the petition as it was not maintainable on several grounds, including “absurd allegations”. In the process, the court also questioned the motive behind many PILs filed with unfailing regularity in courts across the country.
“It is not entirely inconceivable that a petition disguised as “public interest litigation” can be filed with an ulterior motive or at the instance of some other person who hides behind the cloak of anonymity, even in cases where the procedure for selection has been meticulously followed. The petitioner has cleverly distorted and misinterpreted the official documents on virtually each and every issue. In our opinion, the petition does not satisfy the test of utmost good faith which is required to maintain PILs,” the court said.
The apex court had last year issued notices to the Centre and Sebi and also impleaded the President’s secretary, Omita Paul, who was advisor to the then finance minister when the decision to appoint Sinha as Sebi chairman was taken.