Lokpal seeks SEBI chief’s reply on interest charges dispute

SEBI Chairman Madhabi Puri Buch. File | Photo Credit: PTI

The anti-corruption body Lokpal on Friday (November 8, 2024) sought an explanation from India’s stock market chief, Madhabi Puri Buch, on conflict of interest charges against him in three separate complaints citing a recent US report. -Short selling firm, Hindenburg Research.

The order, issued by a Bench headed by Lokpal chairman Justice AM Khanwilkar, emphasized that this was only a procedural guideline and did not specifically mention the name of Ms. Buch. However, it means that Ms. Buch is required to file an affidavit within four weeks of receiving the order, and the Lokpal Bench will take up the decision for further consideration on December 19.

Also Read: SEBI Chief Madhabi Puri Buch Skips Parliament’s PAC Summons, Gives Reasons

Hindenburg Research, which has allegations of malpractice and share price manipulation by the Adani group of companies as early as 2023, published a report this August saying that the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) came up empty in its investigation into the Adani group it should have. in the back “following a trail that may lead to its seat”; without “collision or capture” control.

After the report of the research company, SEBI, and Ms. Buch and his partner Dhaval Buch, also named in the report, issued separate statements in an attempt to clarify the charges.

The appeal was filed on Aug.

The complaint was lodged with the Lokpal on August 13, 2024, naming the civil servant. [Ms. Buch] against whom action was sought under the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act for allegedly having committed an offense punishable under the Prevention of Corruption Act. Another lawsuit was filed on the same charges on September 11, followed by a third on October 14.

After considering these complaints, the Lokpal issued an order on Friday, saying: “For the time being, without expressing any opinion on the merits and admissibility of the allegations/contents of the complaint and the explanatory affidavit (letters), including regarding the correctness of the application filed by the respective complainant, we deem it appropriate to call -RPS (respondent public servant) to give an explanation regarding the allegations leveled against him in the relevant complaint and elaborated in an explanatory affidavit.”

“We also make it clear that since the allegations are mainly directed at the RPS whose name is a government employee and other people are referred to, along with the fact that the complainant (complainants) themselves have prayed for action to be taken under the law against the named RPS, the opportunity to give an explanation is limited to the RPS mentioned in this complaint right now,” he said.

Earlier, the Lokpal had asked the first two petitioners in the matter to clarify certain issues in an order dated September 20, after which they filed explanatory affidavits. “In other words, we are now asked to look not only at the allegations made in the original complaints but also the contents of the explanatory affidavit filed to explain the reasons why action should be taken against the government employees,” the Lokpal diktat noted.

In its September order, the Lokpal noted that the complainants had pointed out “very serious personal allegations” against the public servant made by Hindenburg Research. Trinamool Congress MP Mahua Moitra was one of the three complainants against the SEBI official, and alleged “quid pro quo programs that may endanger the interests of the country”.