Adani issue: SC says not going to issue any injunction to media
New Delhi (PTI): The Supreme Court on Friday rejected a plea seeking to gag the media from reporting on the Adani-Hindenburg issue till the court pronounces its order.
The apex court had reserved its order on February 20 on a batch of PILs on the recent Adani Group shares crash triggered by the Hindenburg Research's fraud allegations.
A bench headed by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud declined the plea of advocate M L Sharma who mentioned the matter.
"We are not going to issue any injunction to the media", the bench also comprising Justices PS Narasimha and JB Pardiwala said.
The top court on Monday had refused to take on record the suggestion of one of the petitioners and a report published by Forbes in a batch of PILs.
The top court on February 17 had refused to accept in a sealed cover the Centre's suggestion on a proposed panel of experts for strengthening regulatory measures for the stock market.
Observing that it wants to maintain full transparency in the interests of investors, it said it would rather not accept the Centre's suggestion in a sealed cover.
"We will not accept the sealed cover suggestion by you because we want to maintain full transparency," the bench had said.
On February 10, the top court had said the interests of Indian investors need to be protected against market volatility in the backdrop of the Adani Group stock rout and asked the Centre to consider setting up a panel of domain experts headed by a former judge to look into strengthening the regulatory mechanism.
Till now, four PILs have been filed in the top court on the issue by lawyers M L Sharma and Vishal Tiwari, Congress leader Jaya Thakur and activist Mukesh Kumar.
Adani Group stocks have taken a beating on the bourses after the Hindenburg Research made a litany of allegations, including fraudulent transactions and share price manipulation, against the business conglomerate.
The Adani Group has dismissed the charges as lies, saying it complies with all laws and disclosure requirements.
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
We are together at home: Sharad Pawar on Ajit Pawar
Mumbai (PTI): Former Union minister Sharad Pawar on Monday said that he and nephew Ajit Pawar are together as a family, but made it clear that the latter was heading a different political party.
“Gharat tari ekatrach ahet (we are together at home least),” the veteran politician said at a press conference at Chiplun in coastal Konkan region.
He was responding to a query about the demand from “various quarters in the state” that the uncle-nephew duo should come together once again.
In July last year, Ajit Pawar broke away from his uncle to join the Eknath Shinde-led government in the state as deputy chief minister. Of late, there has been speculation over his continuation in the ruling alliance.
Asked about Ajit Pawar’s recent remarks the decision to make his wife Sunetra Pawar contest the Lok Sabha polls against Supriya Sule in Baramati was a mistake, the veteran politician said, “He is in a different party. Why should we comment on decisions taken by another party?”
Asked if the opposition Maha Vikas Aghadi (MVA) alliance of NCP (SP), Congress and Shiv Sena (UBT) had decided its chef ministerial face, Pawar said, “I don’t think that it is an urgent issue at the moment”.
When elections were held after the Emergency, Morarji Desai’s name as PM candidate was not disclosed before polling, he added.
“Our (MVA) attempt is to give a progressive alternative in Maharashtra with help of other parties like Samajwadi Party and Peasants and Workers Party,” he said.
“Our observation is that the people of Maharashtra have made up their mind to give us (MVA) a chance in the ensuing elections,” he said.
Asked about Andhra CM Chandrababu Naidu’s claim that sub-standard ghee with 'animal fat' was used to make prasad laddoos at Tirupati temple during Jaganmohan Reddy's tenure as CM, Pawar said, “If anything was mixed, it is very wrong and action should be taken against those involved”.
