The Delhi High Court has dismissed a public interest litigation (PIL) challenging IFCI Limited’s past divestment of shares in the National Stock Exchange of India Limited (NSE), holding that the petitioner had failed to disclose an earlier proceeding involving substantially similar issues.
A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia dismissed the petition on August 19, 2026, and imposed exemplary costs of ₹5 lakh on the petitioner.
Background of the Case
The PIL concerned IFCI’s sale of 11,25,000 NSE equity shares during 2015-16 in four tranches to DVI Fund, Soach Global and two other transferees. The petitioner alleged that the shares had been sold at a valuation lower than an earlier comparable transaction and sought directions for disclosure, regulatory examination and investigation.
IFCI had maintained that the divestment was carried out with SEBI’s approval, following due process and a competitive bidding process.
NSE, however, raised a preliminary objection. It pointed out that the petitioner had already filed a writ petition before the Bombay High Court in May 2026 concerning substantially similar issues, but had not disclosed that proceeding in the Delhi PIL.
Court’s Observation
The Delhi High Court found the non-disclosure significant. The Bench noted that the Bombay proceeding had been filed by the same petitioner and substantially concerned the same NSE shareholding and disclosure of ownership and ultimate beneficiaries.
The Court observed:
“The Petitioner has made no disclosure whatsoever in terms of Rule 9(i)(h) of the PIL Rules. On the contrary, the Petitioner has made positive averments to the opposite effect in the present PIL.”
The Bench further held that the two proceedings had a direct and substantial overlap and rejected the contention that the Bombay petition was unrelated. It also accepted NSE’s submission regarding forum shopping.
The Court stressed that a person invoking PIL jurisdiction must make complete and fair disclosure of material facts. It said that suppression of such facts or an incorrect statement on oath can disentitle a litigant to relief at the threshold.
Decision
The Court said it was therefore unnecessary to examine the merits of the allegations concerning IFCI’s NSE share divestment. Finding that the petitioner had approached the Court without the required disclosure and had engaged in forum shopping, the Bench imposed exemplary costs of ₹5 lakh.
The amount was directed to be paid to the Delhi High Court Bar Clerks’ Association within two weeks. The petitioner’s request for reduction of the costs was also rejected.
Accordingly, the PIL was dismissed with exemplary costs of ₹5 lakh.
Case Details
Case Title: Parinay Sharma v. Union of India & Ors.
Case Number: W.P.(C) 11957/2026
Judge: Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia
Decision Date: August 19, 2026
 Act (UAPA)-300x169.webp)
 and Advocates-300x169.webp)
-300x169.webp)
