New Delhi, Apr 1 (UNI) The Supreme Court on Tuesday disposed of a writ petition filed by Mahua Moitra, Member of Parliament, seeking directions to the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) to mandate public disclosure norms for Foreign Portfolio Investors (FPIs) and Alternative Investment Funds (AIFs).

A bench comprising Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma heard the petition, which called for greater transparency in financial markets.

The Court allowed Mahua Moitra to submit a detailed representation to SEBI, highlighting her concerns. It directed that once such a representation is made, SEBI may consider it under the law.

Advocate Prashant Bhushan, appearing for Moitra, submitted that ₹10 lakh crore is under the control of FPIs and AIFs. He argued that while SEBI regulations require Mutual Funds and other investors to disclose details about their investments and investors, no such public disclosure norms exist for FPIs and AIFs.

“Recently, SEBI mandated that if assets under management exceed ₹50,000 crore, the investors must disclose their details to SEBI.

However, there is no requirement for public disclosure, nor is there any obligation for those managing assets below ₹50,000 crore. This lack of transparency has resulted in market manipulation, money laundering, and tax evasion concerns,” Bhushan contended.

Before he could elaborate further, Justice Nagarathna questioned whether a representation had been made to SEBI regarding these concerns.

The petition stated that the rapid expansion of AIFs and FPIs in India's financial markets has raised serious transparency concerns, unlike mutual funds, which are subject to strict public disclosure norms.

Justice Nagarathna advised that a representation should first be made to SEBI.

Bhushan agreed, requesting the Court to keep the petition pending. However, the Court disposed of the petition, granting liberty to the petitioner to make a formal representation to SEBI.

The Court also noted that if SEBI fails to respond, Moitra could seek a writ of mandamus directing action.

Bhushan further pointed out that SEBI has justified the lack of public disclosure requirements by citing privacy concerns, which has discouraged petitioners from making a formal representation.

Justice Nagarathna responded, “You have directly approached the Court with a PIL. File a representation first so that SEBI has an opportunity to consider the grievance.”

Bhushan agreed to do so, acknowledging the urgency of the issue, while the Court formally disposed of the petition with the given directions.

UNI SNG CS