RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LIMITED VERSUS SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA & ORS.

Landmark Cases of India / सुप्रीम कोर्ट के ऐतिहासिक फैसले

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1167 of 2022

[@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL) NO. 3417/2022]

RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LIMITED … APPELLANT

VERSUS

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE

BOARD OF INDIA & ORS. … RESPONDENTS

J UDGM EN T

N.V. RAMANA , CJI

1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal is filed against the impugned order dated

28.03.2022, passed by the High Court of Judicature at

Bombay in Criminal Interim Application No. 1945 of 2021 in

Criminal Revision Application No. 209 of 2020.

REPORTABLE

3. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this appeal are that a

complaint was filed on 21.01.2002 by one Shri S.

Gurumurthy, with the Securities and Exchange Board of India

[for short ‘the SEBI’] against Reliance Industries Ltd. [for short

‘RIL’], its associate companies and its directors, alleging that

they fraudulently allotted 12 crore equity shares of RIL to

entities purportedly connected with the promoters of RIL,

which were funded by RIL and other group companies in

1994. It was alleged that the company and its directors were

in violation of Section 77 of the Companies Act, 1956. Based

on the aforesaid complaint, the SEBI appointed an

investigating officer to inquire into the aforesaid complaint.

Accordingly, a report was submitted by the said investigating

officer on 04.02.2005.

4. It may be necessary to note that SEBI chose not to take any

action with respect to the aforesaid letter. The appellant

alleged that a note was prepared by the Legal Affairs

Department of the SEBI on 17.05.2006, wherein it was noted

that the report had not brought out any specific violation of

any legal provision by RIL. However, the note was said to have

observed that there was requirement of an opinion by an

external expert inter alia on the possibility of initiating

appropriate criminal proceedings against RIL. In this context,

a retired Judge of this Court, Justice (Retd.) B.N. Srikrishna

was approached by SEBI for the same. The learned retired

Judge is stated to have given his first opinion to SEBI, which

was divulged by SEBI in parts, to the appellant herein.

5. On 16.04.2010, SEBI sent a letter to RIL alleging that RIL had

funded purchase of its own shares by 38 related entities and

thereby violated Section 77 (2) of the Companies Act, 1956 and

consequently, violated Regulations 3, 5 and 6 of the Securities

and Exchange Board of India (Prohibition of Fraudulent and

Unfair Trade Practices relating to Securities Market)

Regulations, 1995. RIL, in reply, addressed numerous letters

to SEBI requesting for copies of the documents and submitting

inter alia that the issue concerning violation of Section 77 of

the Companies Act, 1956 was examined by the Ministry of

Corporate Affairs which had concluded that the transaction

was compliant with the applicable law.

6. In any case, the Adjudicating Officer of SEBI issued a show

cause notice to the promoters of RIL under Rule 4 of the

Securities and Exchange Board of India (Procedure for Holding

Inquiry and Imposing Penalties by Adjudicating Officer) Rules,

1995 alleging violation of Regulation 11(1) of the SEBI

Takeover Regulations (as it then stood).

7. It is borne out from the records that an Office Memorandum

dated 18.7.2011 was issued by the Ministry of Corporate

Affairs wherein it was noted that provisions under Section 77

of the Companies Act, 1956 was not attracted.

8. When the matter stood thus, on 29.09.2011, RIL filed a

settlement application before SEBI, without prejudice to its

rights, in order to put a quietus to the aforesaid issue which

had taken place many years ago.

9. In any case, SEBI issued a letter dated 23.04.2014, answering

the request of documents sought by the appellant herein in

the following manner:

“With regard to the documents/information

sought in paragraphs 5(a) to (d) of the said letter,

SEBI’s response is as under:

1. Request 5(a): The copy of the opinion received by

SEBI on June 11, 2009 from a retired judge of the

Hon’ble Supreme Court of India cannot be

provided since it is privileged and confidential in

nature.

2. Request 5(b): a copy of the case for opinion

provided by SEBI to the Hon’ble retired judge for

seeking the opinion is enclosed.

3. Request 5(c): A copy of the communication from

Ministry of Corporate Affairs dated February 7,

2012 and dated September 1, 2011 forwarding

letter dated July 18, 2011 is enclosed.

4. Request 5(d): A copy of the relevant opinion /

views dated April 6, 2006, June 11, 2009 and

August 25, 2010 of the legal department of SEBI

are enclosed.”

10. It is a matter of record that in the year 201718, the SEBI

decided to reexamine the issue and accordingly sought advice

of Justice (Retd.) B.N. Srikrishna for the second time. Justice

(Retd.) B.N. Srikrishna addressed a letter dated 26.07.2017 to

the SEBI in the following manner:

“Considering the importance of the matter I am of

the view that some very senior person should be

consulted in this matter.

I would suggest SEBI to approach Mr. Y.H.

Malegam, Chartered Accountant, who may be

consulted in this matter. He is a person of high

standing and great repute. In my opinion, he

would be the most appropriate person to advise us

as to whether the monies transferred to RUPL and

RPTL were towards project advances and other

charges or were merely round tripping.

You may depute one senior person to meet him and

discuss with him the facts. It would enable him to

take a view in the matter and make a report to you.

After the report of Mr. Malegam is received, you

may further discuss the matter with me.”

11. It is stated by the appellant that Mr. Y.H. Malegam, Chartered

Accountant examined the records of RIL and various other

companies and submitted his report to SEBI.

12. Based on the report of Mr. Y.H. Malegam, an opinion was

sought from the learned retired Judge for the second time.

13. On 21.01.2019, the appellant addressed a letter to SEBI

seeking further material in connection with the pending

settlement application in the following manner:

“Accordingly, we request SEBI to provide us

inspection and copies of the following in connection

with the subject settlement:

(a) All further material collected by SEBI;

(b) Further internal reports and noting;

report from Shri Y.H. Malegam, which was

confirmed by the Committee as having been

received;

(d) Any further case for opinion and opinion

obtained by SEBI.”

14. In reply, SEBI rejected the request for disclosure of the

documents in the following manner:

“With regard to your request for the said report, it

may be noted that no such report or other material

as asked is asked (sic) is made part of the pending

settlement proceedings. Further, your attention is

drawn to Regulation 13(2)(a) of the SEBI

(Settlement Proceedings) Regulations, 2018, which

reads as under:

“(a) Call for relevant information, documents etc.,

pertaining to the alleged default(s) in possession of

the applicant or obtainable by the applicant;

Explanation – Nothing in these regulations shall

confer a right upon the applicant to seek

information from the Board or require the Board to

seek information from any other person for the

purpose of relying upon it in the settlement

proceedings or request the Board to permit it to

present information not already disposed in the

applicant, [Illegible] the applicant our (sic) aware of

at the time of making the application or which

information upon diligent enquiry being made

could bare became known to the applicant.”

In view of the same, I am directed to inform you

that the request for the said report and other

material has not been acceded to.”

15. Aggrieved by the aforesaid communication of the SEBI, the

appellant challenged the same before the High Court of

Bombay in Writ Petition (Lodg.) No. 300 of 2019. The High

Court, vide order dated 04.02.2019, dismissed the aforesaid

petition. It may not be out of context to note that SEBI also

rejected the supplementary application filed by the appellant

herein.

16. On 16.07.2020, SEBI filed a complaint in the Court of SEBI

Special Judge, Mumbai praying therein as under:

“(a) That this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to

issue the process against the accused for the

continuing offences punishable under Section 24(1)

r/w Section 27 of the SEBI Act, 1992 as amended

in 2002, for having violated Regulations 3,5 and 6

of the SEBI (PFUTP) Regulations 1995, Regulation

11 of the SEBI (SAST) Regulations, 1997 and be

further pleased to deal with the accused in

accordance with the law.

(b) That this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to

issue the process against the accused for offences

punishable under Sections 77(2) and 77A r/w

Section 55A of the Companies Act, 1956.”

17. On 30.09.2020, the SEBI Special Court dismissed the

complaint filed by SEBI as being barred by limitation.

18. The aforesaid order has been challenged by SEBI in Criminal

Revision Application No. 209 of 2020 before the High Court of

Bombay. In the aforesaid proceedings, the appellant filed an

application being IA No. 1945 of 2021, seeking the following

documents:

(i) Report of Sh. Y.H. Malegam, Chartered

Accountant.

(ii) Brief for opinion / Case for opinion prepared

by SEBI for obtaining further written opinion

of Hon’ble Mr. Justice (Retd.) B.N. Srikrishna.

(iii) Revised written opinion issued by Hon’ble Mr.

Justice (Retd.) B.N. Srikrishna.

19. The High Court after extensively hearing the arguments on the

aforesaid application passed the impugned order on

28.03.2022 in the following manner:

“5. At this stage, the prayer sought for in the

Interim Application cannot be considered without

hearing the main Revision Application. It is pertinent

to note that the respondent No.1 – SEBI i.e. original

applicant in the Revision Application has filed the

aforesaid Revision Application seeking quashing and

setting aside of the impugned order dated 30th

September, 2020, passed by the learned SEBI Special

Judge, City Civil and Sessions Court, Greater

Bombay, in SEBI Misc. Application No. 686 of 2020,

by which the learned Judge dismissed the

Miscellaneous Application No. 686 of 2020

(complaint) only on the ground, that it was barred by

limitation. Therefore, the question that arises in the

Revision Application is whether the complaint filed by

SEBI was barred by limitation or not.

6. In view of what is stated hereinabove, the

Interim Application will have to be heard alongwith

the main Revision Application, on the next date. It is

made clear that all contentions of the parties in the

aforesaid Interim Application are kept open,

including the question of maintainability.”

20. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the appellantRIL has filed

the present appeal.

21. Mr. Harish Salve, learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf

of the appellant contends:

i. That the challenge to the maintainability of the

present appeal is misconceived. He stated that the

interim application filed for seeking documents was

argued at length before the High Court, which was

ultimately not considered.

ii. That the SEBI, being a regulator, has a duty to

disclose documents pursuant to Article 21. This

constitutional mandate has been accepted by this

Court and has been applied to SEBI in T. Takano

v. Securities and Exchange Board of India,

2022 SCC Online SC 210

iii. SEBI cannot claim litigation privilege as the

proceedings are not adversarial in nature.

iv. That the selective disclosure of excerpts of the

opinion by Justice (Retd.) B.N. Srikrishna,

amounted to cherry picking by SEBI which cannot

be allowed. The accused is entitled to the complete

document to ensure a fair trial.

v. That the action of SEBI of disclosing excerpts of the

report clearly amounts to waiver of litigation

privilege claimed by SEBI.

22. Mr. Arvind Datar, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf

of the respondents contends:

i. That the present appeal is not maintainable as there

is no criminal complaint pending as on this date.

The appellant cannot seek documents in a criminal

revision against dismissal of the complaint on the

ground of limitation.

ii. The issue before the High Court was limited to the

issue of limitation and the attempt of the accused to

expand the proceedings to seek documents cannot

be entertained.

iii. That the impugned order was a mere adjournment

order which has not affected any rights of the

accused. Therefore, the appeal is not maintainable

against such an adjournment order.

iv. The law laid down in T. Takano v. Securities and

Exchange Board of India, 2022 SCC Online SC

210, is not applicable to the present case as it was

rendered in the context of investigation under

different Regulations.

v. The documents are being sought at a premature

stage. If cognizance is taken by the trial Court, the

accused would be entitled for the documents in

terms of Section 207 of CrPC. Any attempt to seek

documents beyond the scope of Section 207 CrPC

cannot be accepted.

vi. The opinion of the Retd. Judge and the report of the

Chartered Accountant are clearly covered as part of

litigation privilege in terms of the Indian Evidence

Act. Such opinions cannot be a matter of production

by a party.

23. Having heard the parties at length and perusing the records,

the following questions arise for consideration:

i. Whether this appeal is maintainable?

ii. Whether SEBI is required to disclose documents in

the present set of proceedings?

ISSUE I

24. At the outset, Mr. Datar, learned Senior Counsel appearing on

behalf of the respondents has challenged the maintainability

of the present appeal on two grounds namely: (1) that the

impugned order is a mere adjournment order against which

this Court should not exercise its discretionary jurisdiction; (2)

that no criminal complaint exists, to seek document disclosure

as the trial Court had already dismissed SEBI’s complaint on

the ground of delay. On the contrary, Mr. Harish Salve,

learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant

has portrayed that the High Court was not justified in

adjourning a case after hearing the parties on more than two

occasions on the application.

25. The present dispute pertains to certain facts which took place

in 19921994, when the initial complaint was instituted before

SEBI in the year 2002, which is alleged to be closed by the

note of the Legal Affairs Department of SEBI dated

17.05.2006. Further, the letter of the Ministry of Corporate

Affairs dated 07.02.2012 also clarifies interalia, that no

violation of Section 77 of the Companies Act, 1956 was made

out, in the following manner:

4. It has further been reported by the ROC that

there was no violation of Section 81(1A) of the

Companies Act, 1956 in respect of preferential

allotment of shares. Also, there was no specific

guidelines for valuation or determination of

premium in respect of issue of convertible

debentures at the relevant time. The

determination of premium was within the

authority of the company subject to compliance

with Section 81(1A) which appears to have been

done.

5.MCA had conducted inspection of books of

accounts of M/s. Reliance Industries Ltd. in

2002 and for the various violations reported in

the inspection report, necessary penal action was

initiated as stated in para 2 and 3 above.

6. The inspection report of 2002 also revealed as

follows:

i.) Provision of Section 77 of the Act were not

attracted in respect of funds invested by the

company in Somnath Syndicate, a partnership

firm in which company is a partner;

ii.) No funds was given by RIL to 34 entities to

which NCDs were allotted;

iii.) Ambanis were neither directors nor

shareholders of the entities to whom shares were

allotted;

iv.) Ambanis were not allotted any shares

pursuant to PPDIV issue.

7. In view of above, no action is required to be

taken on the part of Ministry of Corporate

Affairs.

(Emphasis supplied)

In this context, the reexamination of the complaint by SEBI

ought to happen only after providing adequate opportunity to

the accused to fully defend his case.

26. There is no doubt that the Special Court of SEBI in M.A. No.

686 of 2020 has dismissed the complaint of SEBI on the

ground of limitation. Against such an order, SEBI has filed a

Criminal Revision being Criminal Revision Application No. 209

of 2020 before the High Court which is pending. On perusal of

this Criminal Revision Petition it is clear that SEBI has made

the following prayer:

(a) This Hon’ble Court be pleased to quash and setaside the impugned order dated 30th September,

2020 and direct the Ld. Special Court Judge

to issue process against the Accused.

(emphasis supplied)

Interestingly, SEBI has not restricted the revision petition to

the grounds of condonation of delay or inapplicability of

limitation as the offences alleged, are continuing in nature;

rather SEBI has pleaded the case on merits. This is apparent

from the following grounds advanced by SEBI on merits:

F. The Ld. Judge erred to appreciate that the

allotment including the allotment of bonus shares,

was fraudulent since it was issued without any

authority, and in violation of securities laws,

including the Companies Act. When the actual

issue and allotment of NCDs with detachable

warrants and subsequent conversion of warrants

into equity shares itself was undertaken without

any authority of the AGM, and the earmarking of

‘bonus’ issue of shares for the benefit of a

debentureholder i.e. a nonshareholder was done

and the total private placement of 12 crore shares

was carried out without any authority either of the

shares holders or in law resulting in cementing of

‘control’ and exercise thereof there was a clear

breach of the fiduciary duty of the accused

directors of the issuer company.

G. The Ld. Judge erred in failing to appreciate that

the fraud was consummate and involved a complex

subterfuge, spread over a long period of time. The

accused Directors sat in subcommittees that

negotiated and earmarked without any share

holder authority, the NCDs with warrants

convertible of shares with a sizeable free allotment

of bonus shares to allottees of the NCDs which

were essentially paper companies and related

companies of the accused and later on joined them

as person acting in concert (PACs) when the

warrants attached to the NCDs were converted into

shares in 2000. When the directors negotiated the

placement of NCDs with warrants with the Unit

Trust of India (UTI) whose allotment is made as per

Resolution 13 as disclosed on the stock exchange,

no such ‘free’ bonus was given to UTI. However, all

this was not considered by the Ld. Judge who

erred in failing to appreciate that the directors also

granted a conversion price to the accused allottees

which was much less than the conversion price

given to UTI.

…

P. The Ld. Judge erred in failing to appreciate

the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court

in the matter of Fiona Shrikhande Versus State of

Maharashtra and another, (2013) 14 Supreme

Court Cases 44 wherein, the Hon’ble Supreme

Court has held that at the complaint stage, the

Magistrate is merely concerned with the allegations

made out in the complaint and has only to prima

facie satisfy whether there are sufficient grounds to

proceed against the accused. In the facts of the

present case there were more than sufficient

grounds for the Ld. Judge to primafacie be

satisfied of the offence and issue process in the

matter.

…

W. The Ld. Judge failed to note that it was vitally

necessary to take cognizance of the offences in the

interest of justice under Section 473, keeping in

mind the devious method of involving 38

companies and routing of funds in a preplanned

and preordained sequence of transactions. If no

cognizance is taken of such egregious offences, it

would seriously harm the interest of the investors

in the securities market. It is in the interests of

justice that large conglomerates having lakhs of

shareholders are not permitted to flagrantly violate

the law and seek to escape prosecution.

27. Coming to the point of delay, inter alia the contention of SEBI

is that the Court should have considered Section 473 of CrPC

to condone delay having considered the facts and

circumstances in proper perspective. At this juncture, it is

relevant to quote Section 473 of CrPC which reads as under:

“473. Extension of period of limitation in

certain cases. Notwithstanding anything

contained in the foregoing provisions of this

Chapter, any Court may take cognizance of an

offence after the expiry of the period of limitation,

if it is satisfied on the facts and in the

circumstances of the case that the delay has been

properly explained or that it is necessary so to do

in the interests of justice.”

The aforesaid provision is categorical in stating that any

limitation prescribed under Section 468 of CrPC can be

overlooked if sufficient cause is made out in the facts and

circumstances of the individual case in the interest of justice.

The said provision, while trying to balance public interest in

initiating criminal prosecutions, has been restricted to

peculiarities of individual case while clothing the Court with

discretionary power. Such a discretion vested in the Court

ought to be a principled exercise, wherein the facts and

circumstances portrayed justify such an exercise. The

intention of the aforesaid provision is to make the inquiry a

question of fact and not of untrammelled discretion as to

whether in a particular case, the Court should condone the

delay.

28. It is in this context that the High Court is bound to consider

the facts of the present case concerning the modus of

initiation of the case and other factors, before considering the

aspect of condonation of delay in terms of Section 473 of

CrPC. The approach of the High Court of adjourning

adjudication of the interim application seeking disclosure of

documents cannot be appreciated. Ideally, the High Court

ought to have considered the interim application before

dealing with the limitation aspect.

29. Initiation of criminal action in commercial transactions,

should take place with a lot of circumspection and the Courts

ought to act as gate keepers for the same. Initiating frivolous

criminal actions against large corporations, would give rise to

adverse economic consequences for the country in the long

run. Therefore, the Regulator must be cautious in initiating

such an action and carefully weigh each factor.

30. In ordinary course, this Court would have remanded the

matter for adjudication by the High Court on the interim

application moved by the appellant seeking such disclosure.

However, arguments have been extensively advanced before

this Court touching upon important aspects of criminal

jurisprudence which require consideration. Moreover, the facts

stated above, clearly indicate that the acts which are sought to

be prosecuted go back to the year 19921994, and over three

decades have passed without there being any end to the

litigation. In this regard, the Court intends to examine this

important issue and pass appropriate orders to ensure that

the adjudication is not delayed unnecessarily, ad infinitum.

ISSUE II

31. This brings us to the issue as to whether the interim

application seeking documents, filed by the appellant herein

deserves to be allowed in the instant case. The respondents

have raised objections for such disclosure on two counts:

i. That such a request was already rejected by the High

Court in an earlier writ petition filed by the appellant

herein, when the settlement proceedings were on going;

ii. That the respondents claim legal privilege, as against

both the opinions of Justice (Retd.) B. N. Srikrishna and

the Report of the Chartered Accountant, viz. Sh. Y.H.

Malegam.

32. Coming to the first objection, there is no gainsaying the fact

that the respondent (regulator) had issued a letter dated

16.04.2010, conveying the findings of the investigation. In

furtherance thereto, the appellant had sought to settle the

issue considering the fact that substantial time had already

elapsed.

33. During the settlement proceedings, SEBI had appointed Sh. Y.

H. Malegam, Chartered Accountant on the advice of Justice

(Retd.) B. N. Srikrishna. Accordingly, the Chartered

Accountant is supposed to have submitted a Report to SEBI.

During the settlement proceedings, the appellant submitted an

application dated 21.01.2019, wherein it sought the aforesaid

documents. In response SEBI, vide letter dated 28.01.2019,

rejected the request by relying on the provisions of Section

13(2) of the Securities and Exchange Board of India

(Settlement Proceedings) Regulations, 2018 [hereinafter

‘Settlement Regulations’].

34. The aforesaid letter dated 28.01.2019, was impugned by the

appellant before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in

W.P. (Lodg.) No. 300 of 2019. The High Court, by final Order

dated 04.02.2019, while dismissing the aforesaid writ petition

held as under:

“10. The internal Committee of the SEBI is seized

of the matter. During the proceedings, an

application came to be filed by the petitioner

seeking copies of certain documents including

copy of the report submitted by Mr. Malegam.

The provisions of Regulation 13(2)(a) are clear.

These regulations do not confer any right on

the Petitioner to ask for a copy of the said

report. In that view of the matter, the issue of

principles of fairness does not arise at this

stage, considering the purpose of the

proceedings before the internal Committee

and powers of the High Power Committee and

the Regulations framed in this regard. There is

no right conferred under the Regulations on the

Petitioner to ask for such a copy. In the facts, we

are not convinced to exercise our writ

jurisdiction.

As and when the adjudicatory proceedings

takes place, the Petitioner may ask for copies

of such documents in accordance with the

procedure established to conduct the

proceedings.”

(emphasis supplied)

We may only note that the High Court was dealing with

specific requests that were made during the Settlement

proceedings under Regulation 13(2) of the Settlement

Regulations. From a reading of the Explanation appended to

Regulation 13(2)(a) of the Settlement Regulations, it is clear

that the intention of Settlement proceedings is to facilitate the

Regulator to consider the feasibility of settlement in certain

cases, without allowing a roving and fishing expedition.

However, the findings of the High Court in the aforesaid case

are of no avail to the SEBI, as we are at a stage when SEBI

has invoked the provisions under the criminal law to

prosecute the appellant herein.

35. At this juncture, SEBI relies on Regulation 29 of Securities

and Exchange Board of India (Settlement Proceedings)

Regulations 2018, which notes as under :

CONFIDENTIALITY OF INFORMATION.

29. (1) All information submitted and

discussions held in pursuance of the

settlement proceedings under these regulations

shall be deemed to have been received or

made in a fiduciary capacity and the same may

not be released to the public, if the same

prejudices the Board and/or the applicant.

2) Where an application is rejected or withdrawn,

the applicant and the Board shall not rely upon

or introduce as evidence before any court or

Tribunal, any proposals made or information

submitted or representation made by the

applicant under these regulations:

Provided that this subregulation shall not

apply where the settlement order is revoked

or withdrawn under these regulations.

Explanation. – When any fact is discovered in

consequence of information received from a

person in pursuance of an application, so much

of such information, whether it amounts to an

admission or not, as relates distinctly to the fact

thereby discovered, may be proved.

Reliance on the above provision is misconceived, as both the

clauses must be interpreted to deter usage of the applicant’s

proposals/representations and allied information before

Courts/Tribunals, in the event the settlement fails. It does not

deal with the disclosure obligations cast on SEBI. In any case,

the purpose of settlement is to ensure that parties come to an

understanding having assessed their relative merits. It is

expected that parties in such proceedings are transparent,

more so for Regulators like SEBI, who are expected to share all

the documents, which are necessary for understanding the

issue.

36. It is a matter of record that subsequently, the settlement

proceedings were terminated by SEBI and thereafter SEBI has

decided to initiate a criminal complaint against the appellant

herein.

37. In this context, the objection of SEBI that the issue of

disclosure of documents is res judicata as the same was

disallowed by the High Court in the earlier round of litigation,

cannot be sustained in the eyes of law.

38. This brings us to the right of the accusedappellant to seek

document disclosure in the present case. In this case, the

appellant has been pursuing SEBI for these documents as

they believe that an attempt is being made by SEBI to

suppress the Opinions and Reports as they are adverse to the

cause of SEBI.

39. A cursory glance at the background of the matter would reveal

that initially, a complaint was submitted to SEBI on

21.01.2002, wherein the appellant and its directors were

purportedly involved in irregularities in allotment of NonConvertible Debentures in the year 1994. Accordingly, an

Investigation Report was submitted by the Investigating

Authority on 04.02.2005. SEBI in its counteraffidavit has

admitted that the aforesaid Report was inconclusive and

recommended further enquiry in this regard.

40. In pursuance thereof, SEBI approached Justice (Retd.) B. N.

Srikrishna in the year 2009. He is supposed to have given his

first Opinion, which formed the basis of initiating action

against the appellant herein. It is SEBI’s case that during the

Settlement proceedings, the appellant had disclosed numerous

documents, which mandated SEBI to reexamine its stand.

Accordingly, the matter was referred to Justice (Retd.) B. N.

Srikrishna for a second time.

41. Thereafter, Justice (Retd.) B. N. Srikrishna wrote back to SEBI

asking them to consult Sh. Y. H. Malegam, a renowned

Chartered Accountant to determine the culpability of the

appellant and various directors. It is reported that this

exercise had culminated in the Second opinion of Justice

(Retd.) B. N. Srikrishna.

42. SEBI is a regulator and has a duty to act fairly, while

conducting proceedings or initiating any action against the

parties. Being a quasijudicial body, the constitutional

mandate of SEBI is to act fairly, in accordance with the rules

prescribed by law. The role of a Regulator is to deal with

complaints and parties in a fair manner, and not to

circumvent the rule of law for getting successful convictions.

There is a substantive duty on the Regulators to show

fairness, in the form of public cooperation and deference.

43. The duty to act fairly by SEBI, is inextricably tied with the

principles of natural justice, wherein a party cannot be

condemned without having been given an adequate

opportunity to defend itself. In State Bank of Patiala v. SK

Sharma, (1996) 3 SCC 364, this Court while dealing with

document disclosure and natural justice held as under:

“28. The decisions cited above make one thing

clear, viz., principles of natural justice cannot be

reduced to any hard and fast formulae. As said

in Russell v. Duke of Norfolk [(1949) 1 All ER

109 : 65 TLR 225] way back in 1949, these

principles cannot be put in a straitjacket. Their

applicability depends upon the context and the

facts and circumstances of each case.

(See Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election

Commr. [(1978) 1 SCC 405 : (1978) 2 SCR 272] )

The objective is to ensure a fair hearing, a fair

deal, to the person whose rights are going to be

affected. (See A.K. Roy v. Union of India [(1982) 1

SCC 271 : 1982 SCC (Cri) 152] and Swadeshi

Cotton Mills v. Union of India[(1981) 1 SCC 664] .)

As pointed out by this Court in A.K.

Kraipak v. Union of India [(1969) 2 SCC 262] , the

dividing line between quasijudicial function and

administrative function (affecting the rights of a

party) has become quite thin and almost

indistinguishable — a fact also emphasised by

House of Lords in Council of Civil Service

Unions v. Minister for the Civil Service [(1984) 3

All ER 935 : (1984) 3 WLR 1174 : 1985 AC 374,

HL] where the principles of natural justice and a

fair hearing were treated as synonymous. …”

44. At this juncture, the appellant has pressed into service the

ratio laid down by this Court in Takano case (supra), to seek

document disclosure. On the other hand, the respondents

have tried to distinguish the present case by stating that the

present case is not one of disclosure which is being sought

during investigation by SEBI under the Securities and

Exchange Board of India (Prohibition of Fraudulent and Unfair

Trade Practices Relating to Securities Market) Regulations,

2003. Although we agree with the respondents that the

Takano Case (supra) was rendered under the aforesaid

Regulations, however, we are of the opinion that the reasoning

of this Court alludes to a general obligation of disclosure on

the part of SEBI. This Court has held in the Takano Case

(supra) that three fundamental purposes of disclosure of

information are (i) reliability, i.e., the Court will be able to

perform its function accurately only if both parties have access

to information and possess opportunity to address arguments

and counter arguments; (ii) fair trial, i.e., this will enable the

parties to effectively participate in the proceedings; and (iii)

transparency and accountability, i.e., the investigative

agencies are held accountable through transparency and not

opaqueness. Keeping a party abreast of the information that

influenced the decision promotes transparency of the judicial

process which was discussed in the aforesaid case in the

following manner:

“24. While the respondents have submitted that

only materials that have been relied on by the

Board need to be disclosed, the appellant has

contended that all relevant materials need to be

disclosed. While trying to answer this issue, we

are faced with a multitude of other equally

important issues. These issues, all paramount in

shaping the jurisprudence surrounding the

principles of access to justice and transparency,

range from identifying the purpose and extent of

disclosure required, to balancing the conflicting

claims of access to justice and grounds of public

interest such as privacy, confidentiality and

market interest. An identification of

the purpose of disclosure would lead us closer to

identifying the extent of required disclosure.

There are three key purposes that disclosure of

information serves:

(i) Reliability: The possession of information by

both the parties can aid the courts in

determining the truth of the contentions. The

role of the court is not restricted to interpreting

the provisions of law but also determining the

veracity and truth of the allegations made before

it. The court would be able to perform this

function accurately only if both parties have

access to information and possess the

opportunity to address arguments and counterarguments related to the information;

(ii) Fair Trial: Since a verdict of the Court has far

reaching repercussions on the life and liberty of

an individual, it is only fair that there is a

legitimate expectation that the parties are

provided all the aid in order for them to

effectively participate in the proceedings;

(iii) Transparency and accountability: The

investigative agencies and the judicial institution

are held accountable through transparency and

not opaqueness of proceedings. Opaqueness

furthers a culture of prejudice, bias, and

impunity principles that are antithetical to

transparency. It is of utmost importance that in a

country grounded in the Rule of Law, the

institutions adopt those procedures that further

the democratic principles of transparency and

accountability. The principles of fairness and

transparency of adjudicatory proceedings are the

cornerstones of the principle of open justice. This

is the reason why an adjudicatory authority is

required to record its reasons for every

judgement or order it passes. However, the duty

to be transparent in the adjudicatory process

does not begin and end at providing a reasoned

order. Keeping a party bereft of the information

that influenced the decision of an authority

undertaking an adjudicatory function also

undermines the transparency of the judicial

process. It denies the concerned party and the

public at large the ability to effectively scrutinise

the decisions of the authority since it creates an

information asymmetry.

25. The purpose of disclosure of information is

not merely individualistic, that is to prevent

errors in the verdict but is also towards fulfilling

the larger institutional purpose of fair trial and

transparency. Since the purpose of disclosure of

information targets both the outcome (reliability)

and the process (fair trial and transparency), it

would be insufficient if only the material relied

on is disclosed. Such a rule of disclosure only

holds nexus to the outcome and not the process.

Therefore, as a default rule, all relevant material

must be disclosed.”

45. There is no doubt that the set of facts portrayed herein are

unique. The impugned action of the appellant hails back to the

year 1994, and almost three decades have gone by without

there being any light at the end of the tunnel. The

investigation report by SEBI in 2005 was inconclusive about

the alleged offence. There is even a communique by the

Minister of Corporate Affairs, Union of India recommending

closure of the case as they found nothing to further the

prosecution under Section 77 of the Companies Act, 1956. In

this light, SEBI’s action to initiate a criminal complaint

without providing the appellant an adequate opportunity to

defend itself by releasing necessary Reports and other

documents, cannot be appreciated by this Court as it is in

gross violation of the appellant’s right to natural justice.

Recently, in S. P. Velumani v. Arappor Iyakkam, 2022 SCC

Online SC 663, while dealing with the necessity of document

disclosure in cases where prosecuting authorities blow hot

and cold, this Court has held as under:

“22…The principles of natural justice demanded

that the appellant be afforded an opportunity to

defend his case based on the material that had

exonerated him initially, which was originally

accepted by the State.”

46. The approach of SEBI, in failing to disclose the documents

also raises concerns of transparency and fair trial.

Opaqueness only propagates prejudice and partiality.

Opaqueness is antithetical to transparency. It is of utmost

importance that in a country grounded in the Rule of Law,

institutions ought to adopt procedures that further the

democratic principles of transparency and accountability.

Principles of fairness and transparency of adjudicatory

proceedings are the cornerstone of the principles of open

justice.

47. Even for adjudication of condonation of delay under Section

473, CrPC, the modus of initiation of criminal complaint and

the conclusions reached therein are relevant in the facts and

circumstance of the case.

48. Viewed from a different angle, the respondents have

vehemently relied on litigation privilege under Section 129 of

the Evidence Act, 1872 to claim exemption from document

disclosure. Section 129 of the Evidence Act reads as under:

129. Confidential communications with

legal advisers.—No one shall be compelled

to disclose to the Court any confidential

communication which has taken place

between him and his legal professional

adviser, unless he offers himself as a

witness, in which case he may be compelled

to disclose any such communications as may

appear to the Court necessary to be known

in order to explain any evidence which he

has given, but no others.

49. The rationale of such a provision has been well known to

common law since ages. Sir George Mackenzie's Observations

upon the 18th Act of the 23rd Parliament of King James the

Sixth against Dispositions made in Defraud of Creditors

etc (1675), in Sir George Mackenzie's Works Vol 2 (1755), p1

are significant. He said this, at p 44:

"An Advocate is by the Nature of his

employment tied to the same Faithfulness that

any Depositor is: For his Client has depositate

in his Breast his greatest Secrets; and it is the

Interest of the Commonwealth, to have that

Freedom allowed and secured without which

Men cannot manage their Affairs and private

Business: And who would use that Freedom if

they might be ensnared by it? This were to

beget a Diffidence betwixt such who should, of

all others, have the greatest mutual Confidence

with one another; and this will make Men so

jealous of their Advocates that they will lose

their private Business, or succumb in their

just Defence, rather than Hazard the opening

of their Secrets to those who can give them no

Advice when the case is Half concealed, or may

be forced to discover them when revealed."

In England, the Legal professional privilege is often classified

under two subheadings: legal advice privilege and litigation

privilege. Legal advice privilege comprises of communications

between a client and his legal adviser, and is available when

proceedings are in existence or contemplated. Litigation

privilege on the other hand, covers a wider class of

communications, such as those between the legal adviser and

potential witnesses.

50. Coming to legal advice privilege in England, the House of

Lords through Justice Carswell in Three Rivers District

Council and others (Respondents) v. Governor and

Company of the Bank of England (Appellants), [2004]

UKHL 48, has summarized the law as under:

“The conclusion to be drawn from the trilogy

of 19th century cases to which I have referred

and the qualifications expressed in the

modern caselaw is that communications

between parties or their solicitors and third

parties for the purpose of obtaining

information or advice in connection with

existing or contemplated litigation are

privileged, but only when the following

conditions are satisfied:

(a) litigation must be in progress or in

contemplation;

(b) the communications must have been made

for the sole or dominant purpose of

conducting that litigation;

investigative or inquisitorial.”

51. The distinction in application of this privilege qua adversarial

and investigative litigation/inquisitorial litigation is reasoned

by English Courts in In Re K (Infants), [1965] AC 201 as

under:

“Where the judge is not sitting purely, or even

primarily, as an arbiter but is charged with

the paramount duty of protecting the interests

of one outside the conflict, a rule that is

designed for just arbitrament cannot in all

circumstances prevail.”

52. Further, In Re E (S.A.) (a Minor) (Wardship: Court’s Duty),

[1984] 1 WLR 156, while pointing out that a court in wardship

proceedings was not exercising an adversarial jurisdiction and

that:

“Its duty is not limited to the dispute between

the parties: on the contrary, its duty is to act

in the way best suited in its judgment to serve

the true interest and welfare of the ward. In

exercising wardship jurisdiction, the Court is

a true family court. Its paramount concern is

the welfare of the ward. It will, therefore,

sometimes be the duty of the court to look

beyond the submissions of the parties in the

endeavor to do what it judges to be necessary”

53. Indian position seems to be different from England. Section

126 to 129 of the Evidence Act do not draw any distinction

between adversarial and investigative litigation as such, and

privilege is applicable all through. This aspect is crucial, as it

touches on the foundations of the legal profession at large in

India. This Court does not want to express any opinion in this

regard as the case at hand is different and such an issue does

not arise, for the following reasons:

i. The investigation report was inconclusive, as admitted by

SEBI itself.

ii. Instead of SEBI referring the issue to an expert, it could

have undertaken the exercise of further investigation by

itself, which was not done.

iii. SEBI ultimately took further steps, only because of the

first opinion of Justice (retd.) B. N. Srikrishna.

iv. The first opinion of Justice (retd.) B. N. Srikrishna is a

part and parcel of the investigation and documents

connected therewith.

v. Moreover, certain documents have already been disclosed

to the appellant herein.

54. The simple test in this case is whether SEBI has launched the

prosecution on the basis of the investigation report alone. The

answer seems to be ‘No’ by SEBI’s own admission in its reply

where it states that the investigation report was inconclusive

and hence further scrutiny of the transactions by experts was

called for. That being the case, further Reports and opinions

obtained, from whomsoever it may be, are only an extension of

the investigation to help SEBI as a Regulator to ascertain the

facts and reach conclusions for prosecution or otherwise.

55. For the above reasons, we do not agree with the contention of

the learned Senior Counsel for SEBI that the first opinion of

Justice (Retd.) B. N. Srikrishna is covered by ‘legal privilege’

under Section 129 of the Evidence Act. Same is the case with

the second opinion of Justice (Retd.) B. N. Srikrishna and the

Report of Sh. Y. H. Malegam, which are nothing but a

continuation of the factfinding exercise undertaken by SEBI

to determine culpability.

56. Moreover, learned Senior counsel, Mr. Arvind Datar, appearing

for SEBI has pointed out that the present set of proceedings

have emanated before Criminal Court, wherein the procedures

must be strictly in accordance with the provisions of CrPC. He

states that the stage of document production under the CrPC

is provided under Section 207 and 208, which takes place

after cognizance is taken by the Magistrate. This Court, in S.

P. Velumani (supra), while rejecting a similar contention, held

as under:

“26. We may note that the contention of the

State may be appropriate under normal

circumstances wherein the accused is entitled to

all the documents relied upon by the prosecution

after the Magistrate takes cognizance in terms of

Section 207 of CrPC. However, this case is easily

distinguishable on its facts. Initiation of the FIR

in the present case stems from the writ

proceedings before the High Court, wherein the

State has opted to reexamine the issue in

contradiction of their own affidavit and the

preliminary report submitted earlier before the

High Court stating that commission of cognizable

offence had not been made out. It is in this

background we hold that the mandate of Section

207 of CrPC cannot be read as a provision etched

in stone to cause serious violation of the rights of

the appellantaccused as well as to the principles

of natural justice.”

Observing the facts and circumstances of this case, which

have been adumbrated above, we are of the firm opinion that

the defence taken by SEBI that they need not disclose any

documents at this stage as such a request is premature in

terms of the CrPC, cannot be sustained.

57. Before we part with the present appeal, another disconcerting

aspect of this case that comes to the fore is SEBI’s attempt to

cherrypick the documents it proposes to disclose. There is a

dispute about the fact that certain excerpts of the opinion of

Justice (Retd.) B. N. Srikrishna, were disclosed to the

appellant herein. It is the allegation of the appellant that while

the parts which were disclosed, vaguely point to the culpability

of the appellant, SEBI is refusing to divulge the information

which exonerate it. Such cherrypicking by SEBI only

derogates the commitment to a fair trial. In Nea Karteria

Maritime Co Ltd v. Atlantic and Great Lakes Steamship

Corporation, [1981] Com LR 138 at 139, Mustill J. held as

under:

‘I believe that the principle underlying the rule of

practice exemplified in Burnell v British Transport

Commission [1956] 1 QB 187 is that where a

party is deploying in court material which would

otherwise be privileged, the opposite party and

the court must have an opportunity of satisfying

themselves that what the party has chosen to

release from privilege represents the whole of the

material relevant to the issue in question. To

allow an individual item to be plucked out of

context would be to risk injustice through its real

weight or meaning being misunderstood.’

The aforesaid principle is often referred to as the ‘Cherrypicking’ principle.

58. In the case at hand, SEBI could not have claimed privilege

over certain parts of the documents and at the same time,

agreeing to disclose some part. Such selective disclosure

cannot be countenanced in law as it clearly amounts to

cherrypicking.

59. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we allow the present

appeal and direct the respondents to furnish a copy of the

following documents to the appellant forthwith:

(i) First opinion of Justice (Retired) B.N. Srikrishna

(ii) Report of Y.H. Malegam

(iii) Second opinion of Justice (Retired) B.N. Srikrishna

...........................CJI.

(N.V. RAMANA)

…...........................J.

(J.K. MAHESHWARI)

…...........................J.

(HIMA KOHLI)

NEW DELHI;

AUGUST 05, 2022.

Search This Blog

Indian Constitution

RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LIMITED VERSUS SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA & ORS.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

100 Questions on Indian Constitution for UPSC 2020 Pre Exam

भारतीय संविधान से संबंधित 100 महत्वपूर्ण प्रश्न उतर

संविधान की प्रमुख विशेषताओं का उल्लेख | Characteristics of the Constitution of India