Supreme Court Declines PIL on Viceroy Allegations Against Vedanta Group

The Supreme Court on October 10, 2025, declined to hear a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking directions to SEBI and RBI to probe allegations made by Viceroy Research against Vedanta group entities. 

The Bench, comprising Justices PS Narasimha and AS Chandurkar, indicated that regulators could act independently if they found grounds, but the petition itself was not maintainable, leading petitioner Shakti Bhatia to withdraw it.

Supreme Court Finds PIL Not Maintainable

The Court clarified that it was not inclined to entertain the plea and suggested that the petitioner’s request to direct statutory regulators could not be granted under judicial supervision. Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, appearing for the petitioner, submitted that the prayer was confined to ensuring SEBI and RBI examined existing complaints without implying any finding of guilt or seeking a court-monitored probe akin to the Adani-Hindenburg case.

Government Flags Possible Foreign Influence

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta opposed the petition, calling it an orchestrated attempt by the foreign short-seller Viceroy Research. He pointed out that Viceroy, not the petitioner, had written to SEBI regarding its report, arguing that the PIL lacked bona fides. 

He further warned of a “systematic pattern” where foreign entities influence Indian markets using research reports amplified through litigation, remarking that the Supreme Court should not be taken “on a joyride”.

Read More: Vedanta Demerger: NCLT Delays Hearing Again, Sets New Date and Reviews Revised Scheme!

Background on Viceroy’s Allegations

Viceroy Research’s report dated July 9, 2025, titled “Vedanta – Limited Resources”, accused Vedanta Limited, Hindustan Zinc, Vedanta Resources, and their affiliates of fraud, financial manipulation, and regulatory breaches. 

It alleged violations of SEBI PFUTP norms, lapses under LODR, diversion through related-party fees, misuse of dividends, and concealment of liabilities. Viceroy said it submitted complaint letters to SEBI on July 14 and RBI on July 15, later publishing them due to a lack of public response.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision to dismiss the PIL underscores its reluctance to intervene in regulatory matters that fall within SEBI and RBI’s jurisdiction. While the petitioner cited the seriousness of Viceroy’s allegations, the Court’s stance reinforces the independence of financial regulators in assessing such complaints.

Disclaimer: This blog has been written exclusively for educational purposes. The securities or companies mentioned are only examples and not recommendations. This does not constitute a personal recommendation or investment advice. It does not aim to influence any individual or entity to make investment decisions. Recipients should conduct their own research and assessments to form an independent opinion about investment decisions.

Investments in securities are subject to market risks. Read all related documents carefully before investing.