Explore the crucial aspect of document disclosure in adjudication proceedings as analyzed by the court. The legal principles of natural justice play a significant role in this analysis, ensuring fairness and transparency in the process.
Facts
- The Petitioner filed a Settlement Application dated 22.02.2021 to settle the proceedings initiated by the Show Cause Notice.
- SEBI appointed M/s MSA Probe Consulting to investigate alleged violations of SEBI regulations by Religare Enterprises Private Ltd. and related entities.
- Show Cause Notice No. SEBI/HO/IVD/ID2/OW/P/2020/19435/1 dated 17.11.2020 was issued to the Petitioner under various sections of the SEBI Act and SCR Act.
- The Petitioner requested copies of all documents relied upon by SEBI for the Show Cause Notice.
- Physical inspection and online inspections of documents were conducted.
- The Petitioner’s advocate requested documents relied upon by SEBI multiple times.
- Petitioner’s Settlement Application was not settled, and final hearing was scheduled.
- The Petitioner sought the complete opinion formed under Rule 3 of the SEBI Adjudication Rules 1995.
- The MSA Probe Consulting report and its enclosures were made part of the Show Cause Notice.
- The Petitioner sought directions against SEBI to furnish documents relied upon in the Show Cause Notice.
Also Read: Ex post facto Environmental Clearance in Bio-Medical Waste Case
Arguments
- Mr. Luthra argued that the documents relied upon by SEBI in the Show Cause Notice should not be denied to the Petitioner.
- The Adjudicating Authority must first form an opinion on whether an inquiry should be conducted against the noticee before proceeding to a final hearing.
- The Adjudicating Authority did not follow the required procedure under Rule 4(3) of the SEBI Adjudication Rules 1995.
- It is contended that SEBI should disclose relevant material to the noticee, as it is fundamental to principles of natural justice.
- The Petitioner was denied access to documents essential for replying to the Show Cause Notice.
- The Petitioner did not submit a reply to the Show Cause Notice but demanded to know which documents were relied upon by SEBI.
- SEBI issued a Show Cause Notice to the Petitioner under Section 15HA of the SEBI Act and Rule 3 of the SEBI Adjudication Rules.
- The Petitioner filed a preliminary reply reserving the right to file a detailed reply after inspection of documents.
- SEBI conducted an investigation into Religare Enterprises Ltd. and related entities for alleged violations.
- MSA Probe Consulting was appointed as the Forensic Auditor to examine alleged fund diversion.
- The Petitioner was provided with relevant documents by SEBI for replying to the Show Cause Notice.
- SEBI withheld some documents as they were confidential, internal, or affected the confidentiality of third parties.
- The Petitioner along with 12 other entities received a common Show Cause Notice and relevant documents.
- The Petitioner sought and obtained inspection of various records and documents.
- Online inspection was granted due to the pandemic restrictions.
- Notice under Rule 4(3) might be issued by the Adjudicating Officer for the appearance of the noticee.
Also Read: Land Dispute Legal Analysis
Analysis
- Adjudicating Authority cannot exercise unfettered discretion to redact necessary documents for the noticee to defend their case
- The Adjudicating Authority has a duty to disclose materials relied upon during adjudication
- Case law references include T. Takano, Natwar Singh, Shashank Vyankatesh Manohar, and Amit Jain v. Securities and Exchange Board of India and Another
- Formation of opinion by the Board based on prima facie materials or grounds for initiation of inquiry.
- The stage under Rule 4 for adjudging contraventions specified in Sections 15A to 15HB.
- Adjudicating Officer’s opinion after receiving the reply from the Petitioner.
- Statement by SEBI’s counsel in High Court regarding reliance on documents provided to the Petitioner.
- Court’s interim order permitting SEBI to hold inquiry without relying on undisclosed documents.
- No requirement for the noticee to be heard personally or through a lawyer before deciding to proceed with an inquiry.
- Decision to proceed with the inquiry may be based on the reply to the Show Cause Notice.
- Requirement for the Show Cause Notice to specify the alleged offense and proposed penalty for an effective reply.
- No procedural irregularity observed until the stage of fixing a date for hearing.
- The Board’s opinion under Rule 3 is separate from the inquiry’s outcome, which must adhere to legal requirements and principles of natural justice.
- Appointment of Adjudicating Officer based on the Board’s opinion of grounds for adjudication.
- The Authority is not obliged to supply documents not relied upon in the proceedings, as per legal precedent.
- The High Court did not interfere with the proceedings at the Show Cause Notice stage.
- Adjudicating Officer to issue a notice for appearance after considering the cause shown by the noticee.
- Mandatory provision for a personal hearing once the decision to proceed with the inquiry is made.
- Participation of the person under inquiry not deemed necessary for the process to continue smoothly.
- Issuance of a notice fixing a date for appearance in compliance with procedural requirements.
- SEBI is not required to furnish the opinion under Rule 3 to the noticee in its entirety.
- The documents relied upon for the formation of opinion under Rule 3 do not need to be disclosed to the noticee unless relied upon in the inquiry.
- If the Petitioner is prejudiced by an adverse order, they can approach the appropriate forum.
- No infirmity in the judgement of the High Court dismissing the writ petition filed by the Petitioner.
Also Read: Analysis of Limitation in IBC Proceedings
Decision
- The interim order will govern the inquiry.
- Special Leave petition is dismissed.
Case Title: KAVI ARORA Vs. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA (2022 INSC 959)
Case Number: SLP(C) No.-015149 / 2021
