In the past year, the Hindenburg and OCCRP reports against the Adani group were used as political ballistic ammunition against one of India's largest business conglomerates, Prime Minister Narendra Modi, and regulatory institutions like SEBI.
The entire tool-kit ecosystem, including so-called investigative institutions based abroad, NGOs, aligned media outlets domestic and overseas, Left-liberal groups of all hues and sections of political parties in opposition, most significantly the Congress, has been in hyperactive mode since January 24 last year, the date when Hindenburg published its report.
Led by the Congress party, the opposition forced a washout of the Budget session of parliament. Unrealistic demands and imaginary accusations and claims were made. They didn't allow a discussion on President Droupadi Murmu's address to the joint session of parliament. That too, when it was President Murmu's maiden address to parliament and MPs are free to speak their mind, for or against, in these discussions.
It led to a situation where the nation saw a different kind of competition between leaders, of who could use the most negative or abusive adjectives for business leader Gautam Adani, his group and his perceived proximity to PM Modi only because both are from Gujarat. It was also a convenient alibi for those caught violating the law of the land for immoral, unethical and illegal acts of omission and commission.
They had clearly not learnt lessons after two past failures - the Rafale and Pegasus controversies.
The Supreme Court's clean chit to the Adani group, reposing its trust in the market regulator and the Indian regulatory mechanism, has not just smashed the Hindenburg and OCCRP reports and their patrons like a maverick George Soros, but has also had a numbing effect on the Congress leadership and the party's allies.
In the last hearing on the case, the Supreme Court had practically indicted activist lawyer Prashant Bhushan on several counts.
The Supreme Court judgment, however, brings cheer not just to the Adani Group but also to crores of small investors from across the country, besides institutional investors, public sector banks and institutions.
The one conclusive fact that emerges from the year-long, politically charged dust-raising exercise is simple – Hindenburg, which originally made accusations through a voluminous report, booked a huge profit by short selling before and after the publication of its report, and openly admitted it.
The controversy exposes the tool-kit nexus of Modi government haters and India baiters. Most prominently, it exposes the likes of Rahul Gandhi, Jairam Ramesh, Mahua Moitra and a host of others. The Supreme Court verdict has left them without an issue.
It will hurt the Congress most and further widen the conflict within the opposition I.N.D.I.A grouping. Sharad Pawar had openly rubbished Hindenburg and endorsed the Adani Group. Trinamool Congress leader and West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee, former Rajasthan Chief Minister Ashok Gehlot, CPM leader and Kerala Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan, and the Janata Dal (United) had also taken a soft position on Adani.
Rahul Gandhi, known to narrate stories (his own version) of the rise of McDonald's and Coca Cola to party leaders and workers, has inadvertently painted himself as anti-industry and anti-entrepreneurship. That image is certainly not healthy for the Congress and opposition grouping.
The likes of Rahul Gandhi would be better advised to read the 46-page Supreme Court order before venturing further on the issue, if they wish to keep making fanciful claims.
Consider what the bench headed by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud said in the order -
No apparent regulatory failure can be attributed to SEBI based on the material before this court.
The court must refrain from substituting its own wisdom over the regulatory policies of SEBI. The scope of judicial review when examining a policy framed by a specialized regulator is to scrutinise whether it violates fundamental rights, any provision of the Constitution, any statutory provision or is manifestly arbitrary.
The facts of this case do not warrant a transfer of investigation from SEBI. In an appropriate case, this Court does have the power to transfer an investigation being carried out by the authorized agency to an SIT or CBI. Such a power is exercised in extraordinary circumstances when the competent authority portrays a glaring, wilful and deliberate inaction in carrying out the investigation. The threshold for the transfer of investigation has not been demonstrated to exist.
The reliance placed by the petitioner on the OCCPR report to suggest that SEBI was lackadaisical in conducting the investigation is rejected. A report by a third-party organization without any attempt to verify the authenticity of its allegations cannot be regarded as conclusive proof. Further, the petitioner's reliance on the letter by the DRI is misconceived as the issue has already been settled by concurrent findings of DRI's Additional Director General, the CESTAT and this Court.
(Sanjay Singh is a senior journalist based in Delhi)
Disclaimer: These are the personal opinions of the author.