The Supreme Court on Friday dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking a probe into allegations made by US-based short-seller Viceroy Research LLC against Vedanta group companies, questioning why foreign entities were so invested in India’s internal regulatory matters.
A bench of Justices P S Narasimha and A S Chandurkar dismissed the PIL filed by advocate Shakti Bhatia as withdrawn after senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, appearing for the petitioner, sought permission to withdraw it.
“Why are these companies outside India so concerned about how we conduct our affairs and under what law?” the bench asked during the hearing.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the Union government, Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI), and the Reserve Bank of India (RBI), opposed the petition and described Viceroy Research LLC as a short-seller lacking credibility. He pointed to an email sent by Viceroy to SEBI and other authorities soon after the petition was filed, calling it part of a “systematic pattern where outside agencies create reports and influence the Indian stock market”.
He further argued that the petitioner was merely a “name-lender” for foreign interests. “The highest court of the land cannot be taken for a joyride. Let this petition be dismissed to send a strong message,” Mehta submitted.
Sankaranarayanan clarified that the petitioner neither endorsed Viceroy’s allegations nor its methodology. He said the relief sought was limited: SEBI and RBI should examine the claims and take necessary lawful action. He contrasted the plea with the Adani–Hindenburg case, where the Supreme Court had constituted an expert panel to examine similar allegations.
The bench, however, observed that if it issued notice and sought counter affidavits, it would dismiss the petition with heavy costs. Following this, Sankaranarayanan chose to withdraw the petition.
Viceroy Research LLC, registered in Delaware, USA, had recently published allegations of financial irregularities against Vedanta Limited, Vedanta Resources Limited, Hindustan Zinc Limited, and related entities. Petitioner Shakti Bhatia claimed to have independently corroborated parts of these allegations and sought a probe by regulatory agencies.
Two judges—Justices Sanjay Kumar and K Vinod Chandran—had earlier recused themselves from hearing the matter.
