The financial world was recently shaken by Hindenburg Research’s new report, dubbed “Hindenburg 2.0,” which targets SEBI Chairperson Madhabi Puri Buch. The report alleges a connection between Buch, her husband Dhaval, and certain offshore entities linked to the Adani money movement case. The allegations have sparked a significant backlash from industry leaders, experts, and legal professionals, who have collectively dismissed the claims as baseless, sensationalist, and lacking in substance.
This story explores the varied responses from key figures in the industry, shedding light on the growing controversy and the broader implications for India’s financial and regulatory landscape.
Mohandas Pai: “Character Assassination by a Vulture Fund”
Former Infosys CFO Mohandas Pai was one of the first to react to the Hindenburg 2.0 report. Pai did not hold back in his criticism, calling the allegations “character assassination by a vulture fund.” Taking to social media platform X (formerly Twitter), Pai expressed his disbelief, labeling the report as “rubbish” and accusing it of being an attempt at sensationalism. He pointed out that there had already been a Supreme Court-monitored investigation, which he believed thoroughly addressed the issues raised by Hindenburg. Pai defended SEBI’s regulatory framework, highlighting that the regulations are the result of collective thinking and global benchmarks.
Deepak Shenoy: “Thoda Zyada Ho Gaya, Sensationalism Without Substance”
Deepak Shenoy, CEO of Capitalmind, echoed similar sentiments, criticizing the report for being overly sensationalist. Shenoy remarked that Hindenburg’s latest allegations seemed to lack substance and were driven more by a desire to create a sensation than to present factual information. His assessment added to the growing consensus that the report was more about creating noise than uncovering any real issues.
Gurmeet Chadha: “A Systematic Attack on Indian Institutions”
Gurmeet Chadha, Managing Partner & CIO of Complete Circle Capital, took a broader view of the situation, suggesting that the allegations were part of a “systematic attack” on Indian institutions like SEBI and RBI. Chadha emphasized the strength and integrity of these institutions, urging the public not to overreact and to wait for the facts to emerge. He framed the report as part of a larger effort to undermine confidence in India’s economic story.
Jai Anant Dehadrai: “No Criminal Court Would Take Cognizance”
Criminal lawyer Jai Anant Dehadrai offered a legal perspective, criticizing the Hindenburg report for its lack of substantial evidence. He argued that the report sensationalized routine investment instruments to create a false impression of wrongdoing. Dehadrai asserted that no criminal court would take the report seriously, as it failed to establish any criminality or wrongdoing by SEBI Chairperson Madhabi Puri Buch.
Ajay Rotti: “Ridiculous Links Forcibly Established”
Tax lawyer Ajay Rotti was equally dismissive of the report, describing the connections made by Hindenburg as “ridiculous” and “forcibly established.” He warned that while the allegations lacked technical substance, they could still be exploited by political opposition to disrupt discourse. Rotti expressed concern over the low level of political debate, which could allow baseless claims to gain traction.
Krishnamurthy V Subramanian: “A Hit Job That Lacks Intellectual Rigor”
Former Chief Economic Adviser Krishnamurthy V Subramanian criticized the Hindenburg report as a “hit job that lacks intellectual rigor.” Subramanian, who has known SEBI Chairperson Buch for two decades, vouched for her integrity and intellectual prowess, expressing confidence that she would be able to dismantle the report’s baseless claims.
Safir Anand: “Desperation Amid a Rising Market”
Intellectual property rights attorney Safir Anand suggested that Hindenburg’s actions were driven by desperation in the face of a rising market. Anand implied that the firm was struggling to remain relevant and was resorting to increasingly desperate measures, such as the release of this report, to maintain its influence.
SEBI Chairperson Buch Responds: “Baseless Allegations and Character Assassination”
In response to the allegations, SEBI Chairperson Madhabi Puri Buch and her husband, Dhaval Buch, issued a joint statement dismissing the claims as “baseless” and an attempt at “character assassination.” They emphasized their transparency and willingness to cooperate with any further investigations, maintaining that their finances and lives were an open book.
The Adani Group’s Response: “Malicious and Manipulative Allegations”
The Adani Group, also implicated in the report, rejected the allegations as “malicious, mischievous, and manipulative.” The conglomerate accused Hindenburg of recycling discredited claims, which had already been dismissed by the Supreme Court in a previous investigation. The Adani Group reiterated its commitment to transparency and clarified that it had no commercial relationship with the individuals mentioned in the report.
Opposition Parties Seize the Opportunity: Calls for a JPC Investigation
As the controversy unfolded, opposition parties seized the opportunity to press the government for action. Congress general secretary Jairam Ramesh called for the establishment of a Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC) to investigate the allegations in full, citing concerns over potential conflicts of interest in the ongoing SEBI investigation into the Adani Group.
BJP’s Sudhanshu Trivedi: “A Pattern of Disruption During Parliament Sessions”
BJP MP Sudhanshu Trivedi suggested that the timing of the Hindenburg report was no coincidence, alleging that it was part of a pattern aimed at creating disruption during Parliament sessions. Trivedi accused the opposition of colluding with foreign entities to destabilize India’s economy and undermine public trust in its institutions.
