The ongoing legal tussle between the Adani Group and Hindenburg Research has taken yet another intriguing turn, as a review petition has been filed before the Supreme Court of India. This development comes in response to the apex court's earlier decision to reject the transfer of the probe against the Adani Group to an independent investigative body, a decision that has sparked heated debates and raised questions about regulatory oversight.

The crux of the review petition lies in the assertion that there are significant errors embedded within the Supreme Court's previous order. Specifically, the plea highlights discrepancies in the court's observation that seemed to exonerate the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) from any apparent regulatory failures in the case. The petition argues that such failures are glaringly evident and have potentially contributed to the alleged market manipulation and regulatory violations involving offshore entities linked to the Adani Group.

In a notable twist, a bench led by Chief Justice of India, DY Chandrachud, earlier delivered a nuanced response to the review petition. The bench emphasized the limited purview of the Supreme Court when it comes to intervening in the regulatory domain of SEBI. It stated that unless there is clear evidence of willful or deliberate violations, the court cannot readily supplant its powers to investigate. 

Furthermore, the bench's decision to grant an additional three months to SEBI to conclude its ongoing probes reflects a commitment to allowing the regulatory body the necessary time and space to conduct thorough investigations. This extension comes amidst assurances from the Solicitor General, Tushar Mehta, regarding SEBI's diligence in addressing the allegations.

Moreover, the bench issued a cautionary note against the pursuit of Public Interest Litigations (PILs) based on unsubstantiated reports. Justices Pardiwala and Manoj Misra emphasized the importance of legal practitioners and advocates exercising discretion and diligence in bringing forth petitions grounded in credible evidence.

This latest development adds another layer of complexity to a case that has already captured significant public attention and scrutiny. It underscores the intricate interplay between judicial oversight, regulatory independence, and the imperatives of corporate accountability.

It's worth noting that last year, an Expert Committee appointed by the Supreme Court to review the regulatory framework in light of the Adani-Hindenburg issue found no conclusive evidence of regulatory failure regarding the allegations of price manipulation. The committee's findings, coupled with the ongoing legal maneuvers, paint a complex picture of a case that continues to unfold in the public eye.

Case: Anamika Jaiswal vs. Union of India.