The bench noted that Sebi's response can contain the relevant causal factors, and the need for putting into place a robust mechanism to protect investors.

NEW DELHI — The Supreme Court on Friday observed that there is a need for a robust regulatory framework to protect the interest of the investors and if Centre agrees, a committee may be set up to suggest regulatory improvements.

The Supreme Court said this while hearing a plea seeking a direction to set up a committee monitored by a retired apex court judge to investigate the Hindenburg Research report, which resulted in crashing of Adani group company share prices and caused massive loss to small investors.

During the hearing, the bench noted that the point that really “bothers us is how do we protect the interest of the Indian investors?”

A bench headed by Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud and comprising Justices P.S. Narasimha and J.B. Pardiwala, in its order, noted that the court has indicated to Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing Sebi, its concern in connection with ensuring that regulatory mechanism within the country is duly strengthened so that Indian investors could be protected against sudden volatility which has been witnessed in recent weeks.

The bench noted that Sebi’s response can contain the relevant causal factors, and the need for putting into place a robust mechanism to protect investors.

It further added that if the Centre is ready to accept the suggestion, the necessary recommendation of the committee may be made and a brief note on legal and factual matrix may be filed by the Solicitor General by Monday.

Mehta assured the top court that Sebi has closely monitored the situation and continues to do so, in view of the Hindenburg report.

After hearing arguments, the apex court fixed the hearing on Monday, asking the Sebi to come back with a response on the regulatory regime and the steps taken in the wake of Hindenburg report controversy. Advocates Vishal Tiwari and M.L. Sharma have filed two separate petitions in connection with the Hindenburg controversy. — IANS