Madhabi Buch’s rhetoric casts further shadow over some of SEBI's actions—or the conspicuous failure to act. This paradox becomes particularly glaring when examining SEBI’s stance, or rather its reluctance, in pursuing thorough investigations into the alleged misdeeds surrounding the Adani Group.

SEBI's newfound sense of 'humility' could easily be mistaken for institutional timidity. Buch’s humility becomes questionable when one unravels the crux of the Adani controversy, where accusations range from corporate misgovernance to opaque business dealings. SEBI’s reluctance to dive deeper into this murky pool is now under the spotlight, and many are left wondering whether this humility has given way to a more dangerous form of hesitation.

Her mantra comes like a self-fulfilling prophecy. By admitting a degree of uncertainty, Buch and SEBI seem to have absolved themselves from any sense of urgency to probe deeper into the Adani allegations. Instead of clarifying the public’s concerns, the measured responses seem to have taken on the nature of a buffer—softening the edges of the public demand for transparency. With each press conference, a steady stream of bureaucratic vocabulary is unleashed, deftly avoiding the elephant in the room.

The big question is whether regulatory bodies can afford to be humble when they are tasked with regulating some of the country's most powerful conglomerates. It seems that SEBI has chosen to err on the side of caution, navigating the complex maze of corporate interests with an almost laughable modesty. By couching inaction in the language of humility, Buch has managed to deflect from what should be SEBI’s primary objective—ensuring the integrity of the Indian financial markets. Instead, this so-called virtue is being applied to decisions that demand scrutiny, particularly when the public’s trust in financial oversight hangs in the balance.

SEBI’s reluctance to investigate a behemoth like Adani raises questions about where Buch's loyalties lie. SEBI, as a regulatory body, should be acting in the interests of the public and the financial system, ensuring that powerful entities do not ride roughshod over the rules. Instead, she has effectively given a free pass to those in the higher echelons of corporate India—particularly those like the Adani Group, whose influence is not only financial but political. It has allowed SEBI to distance itself from investigations that are not just necessary but critical to the credibility of India’s regulatory environment. The irony here is biting—Buch’s insistence on regulators knowing their limits has, in effect, limited SEBI’s willingness to pursue justice where it matters most.

Buch's defence of her actions has been further undermined by Hindenburg's recent disclosures about how she benefited from her Adani Group connections even while serving as the regulator. These revelations have raised serious questions about her integrity and the credibility of SEBI.

When the Hindenburg report first came out, its harsh criticism of the Adani group put SEBI in an uncomfortable spotlight. Instead of addressing the concerns directly and transparently, the regulator responded with vague and often contradictory reports about its investigation. This approach not only misled the public but also diminished the credibility of the Supreme Court’s oversight. The repeated failure to provide a clear, decisive response to the Hindenburg allegations has fuelled suspicions that SEBI was actively trying to downplay or obscure the extent of the issues.

One of the key allegations against Buch is her involvement with shadow companies floated by the Adani Group. Reports suggest that Buch and her husband had financial interests in these companies, which could have potentially compromised her impartiality as a regulator. These shadow companies were allegedly used by the Adani Group to carry out fraudulent transactions and manipulate stock prices.

Hindenburg has levelled new allegations that a private consulting entity owned by Buch has accepted payments from multiple listed companies regulated by SEBI during her tenure as a whole-time member of the regulatory board, including Mahindra & Mahindra, ICICI Bank, Dr Reddy’s, and Pidilite.

The SEBI chief’s exposition of regulatory humility comes on the eve of her possible summoning by parliament’s Public Accounts Committee, headed by Congress veteran K C Venugopal, to answer probing questions. The committee has apparently asked for a detailed review of SEBI’s accounts for financial years 2022-23 and 2023-24 and summoned Sebi’s receipts and payments, its Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) audit report, and the regulator’s internal audit committee observations. (IPA Service)