RIL moves Supreme Court to access Sebi's 2002 probe files

Reliance Industries Ltd (RIL) has moved the Supreme Court against a Bombay High Court order rejecting the company's bid to gain access to documents that the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Sebi) relied upon in an investigation against it.

The inquiry pertains to a complaint filed by S Gurumurthy with Sebi in 2002 alleging irregularities in certain capital market issues made by the company between 1994 and 2000. Reliance moved the apex court on April 8 after the high court in an order on March 28 ruled that RIL's request to access the documents couldn't be considered at the current juncture. The country's top court has tentatively scheduled the matter to be heard in two weeks.

RIL and Sebi didn't respond to queries.


The regulator had moved the Sebi special judge, city civil and sessions court, Greater Bombay, in 2020 to initiate prosecution against RIL based on the 2002 complaint. The Sebi special judge dismissed the Sebi application on September 9, 2020, saying the regulator hadn't moved the court within the stipulated time frame for such cases - three years from the date of receipt of the complaint.

Sebi challenged this in the Bombay High Court in 2021. RIL filed an additional interim appeal asking the high court to instruct Sebi to provide three specific documents. The single judge bench turned this down.

'Privileged Communication'
"At this stage, the prayer sought for in the interim application cannot be considered without hearing the main revision application," justice Revati Mohite Dere said in an order on March 28 this year.

RIL has challenged this in the apex court.

According to the high court order, the three documents being sought by RIL are:

Brief for opinion/case for opinion prepared by Sebi for obtaining further written opinion of justice (retd) BN Srikrishna

Revised written opinion issued by justice (retd) BN Srikrishna

Report of YH Malegam, chartered accountant

The order did not say when these reports had been made. ET could not independently ascertain their dates

RIL's counsel argued "that Sebi has a duty to disclose; duty to be fair; that the material suggesting innocence of the accused cannot be supressed by Sebi". The regulator opposed the application, saying "the said documents as sought for, are privileged communication".