The Lokpal, India’s anti-corruption ombudsman, on Wednesday dismissed complaints against former Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) chairperson Madhabi Puri Buch, which alleged impropriety and conflict of interest based on a Hindenburg Research report.
The Lokpal described the accusations, including those raised by Trinamool Congress MP Mahua Moitra, as “presumptions and assumptions” lacking verifiable evidence.
The complaints stemmed from Hindenburg’s 10 August 2024 report, which claimed Buch and her husband held stakes in obscure offshore funds linked to an alleged money-siphoning scheme involving the Adani Group.
Buch and the Adani Group rejected the allegations, with Buch asserting that the report aimed to undermine SEBI’s credibility through character assassination, while the Adani Group called it malicious and manipulative.
In its order, a six-member Lokpal bench, led by chairperson Justice A.M. Khanwilkar, stated, “The allegations are speculative, unsupported by credible evidence, and do not meet the criteria for offenses warranting an investigation.”
Consequently, the complaints were disposed of. The Lokpal noted that the Hindenburg report, produced by a short-seller targeting the Adani Group, could not serve as the sole basis for action against Buch.
Buch, who served as SEBI chief from 2 March 2022 until 28 February 2025, had been asked by the Lokpal on 8 November 2024 to respond to the complaints filed by Moitra and two others.
She submitted an affidavit on 7 December 2024, addressing the allegations and raising preliminary objections. On 19 December 2024, the Lokpal scheduled oral hearings to allow Buch and the complainants to clarify their positions.
Hindenburg Research announced its closure in January 2025. The Lokpal held oral arguments on 9 April 2025, after additional documents and affidavits were submitted. The advocate for one complainant presented detailed arguments, while the proxy counsel for another opted for written submissions.
Moitra’s counsel did not attend or present oral arguments. Buch, represented by senior counsel, provided comprehensive submissions. Parties were given time to file written responses post-hearing.
The complainants primarily cited Sections 7 and 11 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, alleging Buch sought undue advantage. The Lokpal examined five key allegations raised during arguments and submissions, ultimately finding them “untenable, unsubstantiated, and frivolous,” leading to the dismissal of the complaints.