The Supreme Court of India has disposed of a writ petition filed by Trinamool Congress MP Mahua Moitra, urging the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) to impose mandatory public disclosure norms for Foreign Portfolio Investors (FPIs) and Alternative Investment Funds (AIFs). The Court directed Moitra to submit a formal representation to SEBI for further consideration.

A bench comprising Justices BV Nagarathna and Satish Chandra Sharma presided over the matter. Advocate Prashant Bhushan, representing Moitra, highlighted the significant financial control exercised by FPIs and AIFs, amounting to "₹10 lakh crores." He pointed out the regulatory disparity between mutual funds and these investment vehicles:

"While SEBI regulations require mutual funds and other investors to disclose their investors and the companies they invest in, FPIs and AIFs are exempt from such disclosures."

Read Also:- Supreme Court Upholds Allahabad HC Order for ASI to Whitewash Sambhal Mosque Walls

Bhushan emphasized that SEBI recently introduced a rule mandating disclosure for entities managing assets above ₹50,000 crores, but this requirement does not extend to the general public or entities below this threshold. This lack of transparency, he argued, has resulted in five major financial concerns, including:

• Market manipulation
• Money laundering
• Tax evasion
• Regulatory circumvention
• Lack of investor awareness

The petitioner also informed the Court that SEBI has justified its stance on non-disclosure by citing privacy concerns. Justice Nagarathna, however, questioned whether any direct representation had been made to SEBI prior to filing the Public Interest Litigation (PIL). In response, Bhushan admitted that no specific representation had been filed.

Read Also:- Supreme Court Declines Fresh Petition Against Places of Worship Act; Allows Intervention in Pending Case

Justice Nagarathna remarked:

"You have come directly with the PIL. File a representation. There is no opportunity to apply their mind to the grievance you have raised."

While acknowledging the concerns raised, the Supreme Court advised Moitra to formally approach SEBI with her grievances. Justice Nagarathna further noted that in case SEBI fails to respond, the petitioner retains the right to seek a legal remedy through a writ of mandamus.

Following this observation, Moitra agreed to submit a detailed representation, and the writ petition was accordingly disposed of.

Case Details: MAHUA MOITRA v. UNION OF INDIA AND ANR.| W.P.(C) No. 239/2025