The anti-corruption ombudsman, Lokpal, on Wednesday dismissed complaints of impropriety and conflict of interest against former SEBI Chairperson Madhabi Puri Buch. The complaints, based on a report by Hindenburg Research, were deemed to be founded on “presumptions and assumptions” lacking any verifiable evidence.
Among the complainants was Trinamool Congress MP Mahua Moitra. The complaints, filed last year, cited a Hindenburg Research report published on August 10, 2024, which accused Buch and her husband of holding stakes in obscure offshore funds allegedly used in a money-laundering scheme involving the Adani Group.
“The complaints… are essentially founded on the report by a known short seller trader whose focus was to expose or corner Adani Group of Companies,” the Lokpal noted.
Buch and her husband had denied the allegations, asserting that the short-seller was attempting to undermine the capital markets regulator’s credibility and engage in character assassination. The Adani Group also dismissed the report, calling the claims malicious and a manipulation of selective public data.
In its order, the Lokpal concluded that the allegations “are more on presumptions and assumptions and not supported by any verifiable material and do not attract the ingredients of the offences… so as to direct an investigation therefor.” Consequently, the bench disposed of all complaints. The ruling came from a six-member bench led by Lokpal Chairperson Justice A M Khanwilkar.
Buch served as SEBI chief from March 2, 2022, until completing her term on February 28, 2025.
The Lokpal emphasized that the Hindenburg report alone could not justify initiating action against Buch. “The complainant(s) being conscious of this position advisedly attempted to articulate allegations independent of the stated report but the analysis of the allegations by us, ended with a finding that the same are untenable, unsubstantiated and bordering on frivolity,” the order stated.
On November 8, 2024, the Lokpal had sought an explanation from Buch regarding complaints filed by Moitra and two others. She responded via an affidavit on December 7, addressing both preliminary issues and specific allegations.
Later, the Lokpal granted an opportunity for oral hearings on December 19. Proceedings continued, with oral arguments taking place on April 9, 2025, following the submission of additional documents and written statements.
“The advocate for the complainant in the second complaint made exhaustive oral submissions. The proxy counsel appearing for the complainant in the third complaint opted to file written submissions. Although the complainant in the third complaint has been represented by an advocate, neither the complainant nor the advocate appeared to make oral submissions,” the order said.
Buch was represented by a senior counsel who presented detailed oral arguments. “At the conclusion of the oral arguments parties were given time to file written note/response as requested by them, for consideration of the bench,” the Lokpal noted.
During the proceedings, complainants primarily invoked Sections 7 and 11 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, alleging Buch had derived undue advantage. The Lokpal reviewed five key allegations highlighted during oral and written submissions, addressing each in detail before formally dismissing the complaints.
