In a sweeping verdict that left little room for speculation, the Lokpal of India has thrown out all corruption complaints lodged against Madhabi Puri Buch, former Chairperson of the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI). The ruling, delivered by a six-member bench led by Justice AM Khanwilkar, declared there was not even a shadow of credible evidence to warrant an investigation.
Three separate complaints had been filed between August and October 2024, all rooted in allegations tied to Buch’s time at SEBI. At the center of this flurry was a report from Hindenburg Research—a name better known for targeting conglomerates than guiding public accountability. The Lokpal wasn’t impressed, calling the allegations “presumptions and assumptions… not supported by any verifiable material.”
The ₹5 crore investment made by Buch and her husband in a fund connected to an Adani Enterprises director? Redeemed in 2018—two years before SEBI ever turned its gaze toward the Adani Group. Allegations of impropriety here, the bench ruled, didn’t stand up to the paper trail.
As for the redacted documents handed to a Supreme Court-appointed Expert Committee—an issue critics tried to twist into obstruction—the Lokpal made it clear: this was just an attempt to poke holes in the Supreme Court’s already-settled findings. “We cannot be party to such an attempt,” the bench said flatly.
The complaint that her husband, Dhaval Buch, received ₹4.78 crore in consultancy fees from Mahindra & Mahindra while SEBI was regulating the group also fell apart under scrutiny. The Lokpal labeled it speculative at best, “bordering on frivolity,” and emphasized that Madhabi Puri Buch never dealt with M&M matters during her tenure.
There was even an accusation that she could have swayed other SEBI members. The response? Blunt: “Preposterous.” The panel pointed out that if such claims were entertained, one would end up questioning the integrity of the entire regulatory structure—including retired judges.
The complaint that she profited from a rental agreement with Carol Info Services Ltd., a company linked to Wockhardt, during an insider trading investigation was similarly shredded. The rental deal had been inked years before Wockhardt ever entered the regulatory spotlight. “Incredible to assume… anticipatory rent agreements,” the order noted dryly.
Even the issue of encashing ESOPs from ICICI Bank post-SEBI appointment—another cornerstone of the complaint—was found baseless. The Lokpal made it clear: ESOPs aren’t gifts or quid pro quo. They’re earned benefits, cashable at the employee’s discretion, long after their term ends.
The complaints went as far as suggesting that SEBI went soft on ICICI Bank in four separate proceedings. Again, the Lokpal wasn’t buying it. These were decisions made by expert panels through regular institutional procedures—not solo calls from Buch’s office.
Ultimately, the Lokpal called the accusations flimsy, vexatious, and “trivialising the process.” It warned that proceedings like these could qualify for action under Section 46 of the Lokpal Act—a rare but pointed rebuke to those who misuse oversight mechanisms as blunt instruments.
The complaints may have come from various corners, including public figures and known legal names. But when the dust settled, not a single charge stuck.
In the end, what began as a multi-pronged attack on a high-profile regulator collapsed under the weight of facts, timelines, and institutional integrity.