Supreme Court Adjourns Mahua Moitra’s Plea Seeking SEBI Disclosure Of UBOs In AIFs, FPIs To April 20

A Bench of Justices BV Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan deferred the matter after Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing virtually, sought additional time to assist the Court in person.

“I would like to assist the Court physically,” the Solicitor General submitted, requesting a short adjournment.

The petition, moved by Moitra, seeks directions to the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) to mandate comprehensive disclosure norms for Alternative Investment Funds (AIFs), Foreign Portfolio Investors (FPIs), and their intermediaries. The plea raises concerns over opacity in financial flows and calls for greater regulatory oversight.

During the hearing, Advocate Prashant Bhushan, appearing in the matter, contended that existing disclosures under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) framework are inadequate.

“SEBI is saying they are providing information under PMLA rules. There are a large number of funds which are below ₹50,000 crore,” Bhushan argued, suggesting that a significant portion of financial activity escapes meaningful scrutiny. He further submitted that even the market regulator may not have complete visibility over beneficial ownership structures in certain cases. “Even SEBI doesn’t have information,” he claimed.

The Bench, however, observed that SEBI does possess relevant information, indicating a need for clarity on the extent and accessibility of such data.

Taking note of the Solicitor General’s request, the Court adjourned the matter and directed that it be listed for further hearing on April 20.

On the last hearing, the Court had closely examined the scope and basis of the petition, raising concerns over its vague nature and suitability under Article 32. Justice Nagarathna observed that SEBI’s reply to Moitra’s representation was limited and had not involved examination of actual documents. The Court had also noted that a beneficial owner may not always be a natural person but can be a corporate entity, emphasizing that the plea sought public disclosure of information in the absence of any concrete evidence of violations. It had directed that the amended petition should clearly specify the legal grounds and evidence, allowing the Court to consider whether such a disclosure order could be granted.

On October 9, 2025 the Court had 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.

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 had observed, “So we will dispose of this petition with legal remedies open.”