According to Adani Supreme Court hearing they are not required to accept the Hindenburg report as a statement of truth while considering the petitioners’ arguments regarding the factual revelations presented in the report.

1. Adani-Hindenburg case: The
Hindenburg report need not be
taken as gospel, says Supreme
Court

2. On 24th November 2023, the Supreme Court observed that the Hindenburg Research report
should not be regarded as gospel. According to Adani Supreme Court hearing they are not
required to accept the Hindenburg report as a statement of truth while considering the
petitioners’ arguments regarding the factual revelations presented in the report. The
Supreme Court went on to state that the Hindenburg report’s integrity could not be
independently verified, which is why it had requested that the S.E.B.I. look into the case.
The bench noted that they are not required to accept the Hindenburg report as factually
correct ipso facto. They requested that the S.E.B.I. look into this. As they have known the
information since 2014, the petitioners called the market regulator’s actions “suspicious.”
The Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (D.R.I.) allegedly provided information to the
Chairman of the S.E.B.I. in 2014.

3. In the Adani Supreme Court hearing, the petitioners seeking a probe objected to claims of
conflict of interest against members of the committee it constituted to investigate the
allegations against the Adani Group in the report. The court told them it could not determine
the report’s accuracy until the authorities investigated it. Leading a three-judge panel, Chief
Justice D.Y. Chandrachud of India said, as a court, how do they treat it as credible?
They will have to rely on their investigating agencies to conduct an investigation. They must
thus request that their investigative departments look into those claims. The findings of the
Hindenburg report do not automatically imply that the court has to accept them as fact. They
gave SEBI instructions to look into this.
Yet to determine the report’s credibility

4. In the Adani Supreme Court case, Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud voiced his
displeasure with the accusations against the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI).
The only regulatory body tasked with looking into stock market manipulation is SEBI. Is it
appropriate for a court to declare that it will create its SIT (Special Investigation Team)
because it doesn’t have the necessary evidence? The CJI informed advocate Prashant
Bhushan, who was appearing on behalf of the petitioners, that this needed to be done
carefully.
He also said that he didn’t think anything published in a newspaper could be considered
gospel truth. It was in response to Bhushan’s claim that the market regulator had not
conducted a thorough investigation.
The Chief Justice of India voiced his displeasure with the
S.E.B.I.’s accusations

5. In addition, the CJI conveyed his disapproval of the petitioners’ accusations regarding the
Expert Committee members’ lack of objectivity, which were raised during the Adani
Supreme Court hearing in March 2023. The Chief Justice, JB Pardiwala, and Justice Manoj
Misra made up the bench that dismissed the petitioners’ accusations against the Expert
Committee. A lawyer named Prashant Bhushan had made accusations that some
committee members were connected to the Adani Group and had conflicts of interest.
Releases marking the expert committee