The Supreme Court on Monday refused to entertain a petition challenging the appointment of UK Sinha as SEBI chairman, but permitted the petitioner to file a fresh petition raising legal and constitutional issues in relation to composition of a regulator.
A bench headed by Chief Justice SH Kapadia said it was keen to address the larger constitutional issue vis-à-vis the independence of a regulator. “If you are referring to the independence, then the question should be as to why a bureaucrat should be appointed. And if we have bureaucrats having domain knowledge, then why not appoint them,” the bench told the petitioner’s counsel, senior advocate Gopal Subramanium.
Former IAF chief S Krishnaswamy and retired IPS officer Julio Rebeiro filed a public interest litigation (PIL), stating the new procedure, stipulating a five-member committee to select the SEBI chief in place of the existing three members, was wrong and there was an ulterior motive behind it. The petitioners also sought removal of Sinha.
The court said the issue with regard to Sinha’s appointment could be a separate petition, but, could not be clubbed with the constitutional issue related to a regulator’s independence. It said the petition would not be accepted, as its contents were similar to the earlier one that was disapproved by the court.
{{/usCountry}}The court said the issue with regard to Sinha’s appointment could be a separate petition, but, could not be clubbed with the constitutional issue related to a regulator’s independence. It said the petition would not be accepted, as its contents were similar to the earlier one that was disapproved by the court.
{{/usCountry}}“On going through the petition, we find the contents are just the same. You have simply deleted one person’s name. Please enunciate constitutional principles and challenge the rules or else come out and declare that the chairman’s appointment was bad in law. Under the garb of raising constitutional issue, you cannot go against a particular person,” the bench observed.