The Supreme Court declined MP Moitra's plea seeking public disclosure of fund ownership. The bench said such a mandate requires an existing legal or regulatory framework.Newdelhi,Oct 29, 2026 15:56 ISTThe Supreme Court on Thursday refused to direct the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) to mandate the public disclosure of the ultimate beneficial owners and portfolios of alternative investment funds (AIFs), foreign portfolio investors (FPIs) and their intermediaries in India, news agency Press Trust of India reported.The court said it could not order such disclosures in the absence of a legal framework or regulations requiring them.
It disposed of the petition filed by Member of Parliament Moitra.A bench of Justices B V Nagarathna, R Mahadevan and D K Upadhyaya said there was no legal regime providing for the full public disclosure of ultimate beneficial owners.“We find that in the exercise of a jurisdiction under Article 32 of the Constitution such a prayer cannot be granted for the reason that the framework of full disclosure as sought by the petitioner herein would mandate an existing legal framework or regulations,” the bench said. “In the absence of such a legal framework or regulation, the court cannot direct public disclosure of ultimate beneficial owners We find that the prayer sought for by the petitioner cannot be granted by this court. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of,” it ordered.The bench initially questioned Moitra over the petition and said she could raise the matter in Parliament and seek a discussion. “Petitioner is an MP.
We want to know why she wants to lend her name and file this. We are concerned whether at the instance of this petitioner we should go into or not.
She can easily seek discussion in Parliament,” Justice Nagarathna said. Advocate Prashant Bhushan said Moitra was more informed than an ordinary citizen because she was an MP and had worked for financial companies in India and abroad.“These AIFs and FPIs hold hundreds of lakhs of crores in our stock market.
More than 20 per cent of total holdings of the stock market. She wants to protect innocent investors of the country,” Bhushan submitted, according to PTI.Justice Nagarathna told Bhushan that seeking a discussion through a public interest litigation under Article 32 was one aspect, but such a petition had its own ramifications.
Bhushan responded that securing a discussion in Parliament was difficult and offered to file an affidavit on the matter.“Your lordship is saying that an MP cannot file an Article 32 petition. This is a very dangerous proposition for this court to lay down.
A Member of Parliament is in no worse position to raise an Article 32 petition before this court than any ordinary citizen. A discussion in Parliament is not a substitute for a direction of this court to conform to fundamental rights of citizens,” Bhushan said.He added: “We are raising a very, very important issue regarding fundamental rights of innocent investors.
Rs 100 lakh crores are being invested in our stock markets.”The bench noted that no investor claiming to have been directly affected was before the court. It asked Bhushan not to widen the scope of the petition and to focus on the implications of the Article 32 plea and its possible impact on the market.Bhushan argued that opaque investments entering India through AIFs and FPIs enabled stock market manipulation. “These people, who are investing in our companies through foreign entities, we don't know who they are and whether they are violating SEBI regulations.
Today, there is a lot of suspicion that stock markets are being manipulated by these companies, which are investing huge sums,” he said.The court said it could not issue a direction without an existing regulatory regime. “Had there been any legal regime and the SEBI was not following it, the court can direct for compliance but in the absence of any framework or legal regime, the court cannot issue any mandamus,” it observed.Bhushan maintained that the court could order full disclosure even without such a regime, arguing that innocent investors were being “manipulated” by entities that drove up the shares of certain companies.Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Centre and SEBI, said the petitioner had been accused of asking questions in Parliament at the behest of some businessmen. He opposed Bhushan's submissions and said the relief being sought would create havoc in the market.Justice Nagarathna asked whether granting the request would benefit the market, noting that it would be difficult to persuade the court to order disclosures when no such regime existed.Bhushan said disclosing the ultimate beneficial owners of the funds would not hurt anyone. “They are saying it may affect privacy.
How does privacy trump the right of the citizens and the investors to be informed as to who is investing money? The good that will come out is what we will get to know,” he said.Justice Nagarathna said SEBI had been constituted for this purpose and that market forces operated within its regulatory framework.In her public interest litigation, Moitra sought greater transparency and investor awareness in India's financial markets through the mandatory public disclosure of details of ultimate beneficial owners and the portfolio holdings of AIFs and FPIs.
The plea said SEBI regulates India's securities markets and oversees the operations of AIFs and FPIs.The court ultimately held that it could not mandate the disclosures sought by Moitra without an existing legal or regulatory framework and disposed of the petition.- Ends