The Lokpal has directed two complainants, including Lok Sabha MP Mahua Moitra, to clearly articulate the allegations of corruption against SEBI Chairperson Madhabi Puri Buch under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The complainants were also asked to explain why the findings of the Supreme Court’s January 3 decision should not obstruct Lokpal’s investigation into the matter.
On January 3, the Supreme Court dismissed pleas seeking the transfer of the investigation into allegations of securities law violations by Adani group companies to a special investigation team. The court found no reason to question the Securities and Exchange Board of India’s (SEBI) probe into the matter.
The Lokpal noted that the latest complaints appear to have been triggered by the August 10 report from short-seller Hindenburg Research. However, the anti-corruption body emphasized that its current observations should not be interpreted as a judgment on the merits of the case. The direction is procedural, intended to assess the tenability of the complaints and establish a prima facie view, as required under Section 20 of the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013.
In its order, Lokpal requested the complainants to explain how personal investments or income earned by the public official, including earnings prior to holding office, would constitute corruption under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The agency also questioned how non-disclosure of such assets could qualify as corruption.
Furthermore, Lokpal pointed out that certain actions, while potentially improper, may not necessarily be illegal or constitute corruption under the Act. The complainants were asked whether the issues raised fall within Lokpal’s jurisdiction and if the same subject matter is currently under consideration by the Supreme Court. If so, the Lokpal stated that it may not be able to pursue an inquiry into the matter.
The case will be heard again on October 17.
