Supreme Court Defers Mahua Moitra’s Plea Seeking SEBI Disclosure of Beneficial Owners of FPIs, AIFs to Oct 14
Supreme Court adjourned Mahua Moitra’s plea seeking mandatory public disclosure of beneficial owners of FPIs and AIFs to October 14 after SEBI informed that the Solicitor General will appear in the matter
SC adjourns Mahua Moitra’s plea seeking SEBI’s mandatory public disclosure of real owners behind FPIs and AIFs
The Supreme Court on Thursday heard Trinamool Congress MP Mahua Moitra’s petition seeking directions to the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) to mandate public disclosure of Ultimate Beneficial Owners (UBOs), last natural persons, and portfolios of Alternative Investment Funds (AIFs), Foreign Portfolio Investors (FPIs), and their intermediaries operating in India.
During the hearing, Advocate Prashant Bhushan, appearing for Moitra, argued that SEBI’s stance citing the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) regulations was inadequate. “PMLA regulations do not require public disclosure. We are not on the reply since it does not answer this at all,” he submitted.
The Bench of Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice R. Mahadevan noted that the petitioner could make SEBI’s reply part of the record and clarified that no notice has been issued in the matter yet.
Appearing for SEBI, the counsel informed the Court that the Solicitor General (SG) Tushar Mehta would represent the regulator and that the issue had already been adjudicated.
The Bench adjourned the matter to October 14, recording that the petitioner may file additional documents submitted by SEBI.
Previously, on September 26, the Court had noted that in April, the Court had disposed of Moitra’s previous petition with a similar prayer, directing her to first approach SEBI with her grievances. During the hearing, Advocate Prashant Bhushan for Moitra submitted that a representation had already been made to SEBI, and the regulator had responded only after the filing of the current petition.
Justice Nagarathna observed, “So we will dispose of this petition with legal remedies open.”
Bhushan stated that he would treat SEBI’s response as a reply to the present petition and file a short affidavit to proceed.
SEBI’s counsel argued that the petition could not continue without amendments, stating that a detailed reply had already been provided to all queries. Bhushan countered that no amendments were needed as his prayer remained the same.
The Bench had adjourned the matter, granting time for Moitra to file the affidavit, keeping legal remedies open for future consideration.
Notably, in April, the Court had directed Moitra to make a formal representation to the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) regarding her petition on enhancing transparency and investor awareness in India’s financial markets.The Bench while disposing of her plea, clarified that once Moitra submits her representation, SEBI shall consider it in accordance with law.
The MP had emphasized that Mutual Funds are bound by strict disclosure regulations under the SEBI Mutual Fund Regulations, 1996, and SEBI Collective Investment Scheme Regulations, 1999. By contrast, AIFs and FPIs operate under opaque structures with minimal public accountability.
With foreign investment into India increasing, Moitra warned that absent transparency on UBOs, the market remains vulnerable to practices such as round-tripping, front-running, circular trading, greenwashing, tax evasion, and manipulation.
Case Title: Mahua Moitra v. Union of India
Hearing Date: October 9, 2025
Bench: Justice NV Nagarathna and Justice R. Mahadevan