Mumbai: In a major relief to the former SEBI chairperson and five others, the Bombay High Court on Tuesday stayed the special court’s order directing the registration of an FIR against them in connection with an alleged stock market fraud and regulatory violations dating back to 1994.

The court noted that the special judge had passed the order mechanically, without examining the details or attributing any specific role to the accused.

Observation Made By Justice Shivkumar Dige

“It appears that the learned judge (special ACB judge) has passed the order mechanically, without going into the details and without attributing any specific role to the applicants. Hence, the order is stayed till the next date,” Justice Shivkumar Dige ordered.

Bombay HC Stays The Order

The HC stayed the order while hearing petitions filed by Buch, three current whole-time SEBI directors — Ashwani Bhatia, Ananth Narayan G, and Kamlesh Chandra Varshney — and two BSE officials — Managing Director and Chief Executive Officer Ramamurthy, and its former chairman and public interest director, Pramod Agarwal.

On March 1, the special court had directed the Anti-Corruption Bureau to register an FIR against the six individuals.

They approached the HC on Monday, seeking to quash the special court’s order, contending that it was “unjust” and “harsh.” The officials argued that none of them held their current positions in 1994 and that the trial court ought to have recognized that “no vicarious liability can be fastened” on them.

Arguments Made By Solicitor General Of India

Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta, appearing for the three whole-time SEBI directors, submitted that the complainant, Sapan Shrivastava, was a habitual litigant. He also pointed out that the high court had previously imposed a cost of Rs5 lakh on him for filing a frivolous petition.

Terming Shrivastava’s allegations vague, Mehta argued that no specific accusations had been leveled against the officials. He said the complainant sought a probe into an IPO from 1994, when the six officials were not holding any positions in SEBI or BSE.

“No averments, no explanations given — just a statement that SEBI has failed to discharge its duties. The complaint has been filed against officers who are in office now, for an alleged offense presumed to have taken place in 1994. How can they be held responsible?” Mehta questioned.

Arguments Made By Senior Advocate Amit Desai, Representing The Two BSE Officials

Senior advocate Amit Desai, representing the two BSE officials, said the complainant had made scandalous statements with serious ramifications for the economy, as vague allegations were being made against members of the principal capital market regulatory body.

Further, Desai argued that the special court judge had erred by not ensuring compliance with the Prevention of Corruption Act, which requires sanction for investigating public servants.

“Today’s economy largely survives on an inflow of funds. Taking this type of action (ordering the registration of an FIR) is an attack on the country’s economy. Such action against a market regulator — how frivolous can it get? Unfortunately, the judge did not realize the extent of the matter,” Desai submitted.

Moreover, Desai pointed out that the company in question had been delisted from the BSE in 2019, while the complaint was filed before the court in March 2024.

Senior advocate Sudeep Pasbola, appearing for Buch, also argued that action could not have been taken based on vague allegations made by the complainant.

The complainant, Shrivastava, sought time to file a reply to the petitions.

Justice Dige granted time for the reply and scheduled the matter for hearing after four weeks while staying the special court’s order.