The Supreme Court on Thursday dismissed a petition filed by Trinamool Congress (TMC) lawmaker Mahua Moitra questioning the opacity of beneficial owners of portfolio funds having a market capitalisation of over ₹ 90 lakh crore.
In the absence of this, the court cannot mandate such disclosure. In these circumstances, the prayer sought cannot be granted. He pointed out that in the past, the court has intervened by directing the Election Commission to mandate disclosure by candidates of their criminal antecedents, educational qualifications, assets and liabilities when there was no legal requirement to do so. Solicitor general Tushar Mehta appearing for Centre and SEBI questioned the maintainability of the petitioner who is a MP. Such disclosure will be devastating. Being a member of Parliament does not disentitle her as she has approached this court as a citizen who is also a MP.
A bench headed by justice BV Nagarathna said, “We find that in exercise of our powers under Article 32 of the Constitution, such a prayer cannot be granted as the framework for full public disclosure mandates a legal and regulatory framework. The court clarified that it has nothing against the petitioner who, while an MP, has approached this court by filing a petition under Article 32 challenging the remission granted to the Bilkis Bano rape convicts that was entertained along with similar pleas by other civil society members. She is raising a matter in public interest as she is concerned about the fate of 14 crore innocent investors who have invested in stocks which are manipulated by such opaque entities. Moitra had earlier sent a representation to SEBI that was replied to on September 19, 2025. The two funds (AIF and FPI) hold significant market share with assets under management (AUM) of AIFs showing an increase of over 300% from ₹ 1,437 crore (at the end of FY 2013) to ₹ 13 lakh crore by end of December 2024, according to the petition. Even the asset under custody of registered FPIs is over ₹ 78.6 lakh crore compared to MFs having over ₹ 75 lakh crore as on July 31, 2025.
The court said that its order will not come in the way of the Centre or the Securities Exchange Board of India (SEBI) from framing a policy as there is presently no legal or regulatory framework mandating public disclosure of beneficial owners of Alternate Investment Fund (AIF) and Foreign Portfolio Investments (FPI). The petition was argued by advocate Prashant Bhushan who said that absence of any regulatory or legal framework cannot be a ground for not entertaining the petition. He said, “The purpose of this petition is to stop foreign direct investment. Bhushan said that it will be a “dangerous proposition” to lay down that a MP cannot approach the court under Article 32. He said, “To have a debate in Parliament is not very easy.
This very issue was examined earlier by this court and a finding was given.
