A Mumbai court dropped a bombshell by ordering a police case against Madhabi Puri Buch, who used to run SEBI, India’s stock market watchdog, until just a few days ago. She’s not alone—five other big names from SEBI and the Bombay Stock Exchange are in hot water too. This all started because someone said they pulled off a shady deal way back in 1994, letting a fake company sneak into the stock market. People are stunned, and now the police have to figure out if these bosses really broke the law or if it’s all a big misunderstanding. Here’s what’s going down in five easy points.
A Mumbai court told the police to file a case against ex-SEBI chief Madhabi Puri Buch and five others
On March 1, 2025, a significant legal development unfolded when Judge Shashikant Eknathrao Bangar of a special ACB court in Mumbai issued an order instructing the Anti-Corruption Bureau to file a First Information Report (FIR) against Madhabi Puri Buch, who stepped down as the Chairperson of the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) on February 28, 2025, just a day prior. Alongside her, the FIR targets five other individuals: SEBI whole-time members Ashwani Bhatia, Ananth Narayan G, and Kamlesh Chandra Varshney, as well as BSE Chairman Pramod Agarwal and BSE CEO Sundararaman Ramamurthy. This directive marks a dramatic escalation in scrutiny of regulatory officials, coming right after Buch’s tenure ended and as Tuhin Kanta Pandey assumed the role of SEBI Chairperson on February 28, 2025.
They’re accused of cheating in a 1994 stock market deal with a fake company listing.
The crux of the legal action revolves around claims of serious misconduct dating back to 1994, when a company—whose identity remains unspecified in most public reports—was allegedly permitted to list on the Bombay Stock Exchange despite failing to meet requisite regulatory standards. The complainant alleges that this listing was fraudulent and that SEBI officials, including those named in the FIR, either directly enabled or failed to prevent market manipulation and corporate fraud. The accusations extend to claims of financial impropriety, suggesting that the regulatory framework was compromised, allowing illicit gains to be siphoned off post-listing. This historical context raises questions about accountability, especially since the accused officials, including Buch, were not in their current roles at the time of the alleged incident, a point SEBI has highlighted in its defense.
A reporter complained they worked with big companies for secret profits and broke rules.
The petitioner in this case is a media reporter whose identity has not been widely disclosed in official reports. This individual brought forth a detailed complaint asserting that Madhabi Puri Buch, during her tenure, and the other named officials engaged in corrupt practices. Specifically, the allegations include collusion with corporate entities to manipulate stock market outcomes, insider trading for personal or third-party gain, and a broader failure to uphold SEBI’s mandate to protect investors and ensure market integrity. The complaint paints a picture of systemic abuse of power, suggesting that these officials either actively participated in or turned a blind eye to activities that undermined public trust in India’s financial regulatory system.
The court saw enough proof and ordered this right after Buch left her SEBI job.
The decision by the Mumbai ACB court was not made lightly. Judge Bangar reviewed the complainant’s submissions and concluded that there was sufficient preliminary (prima facie) evidence to warrant a formal investigation. This evidence pointed to regulatory lapses—failure to enforce compliance with listing norms—and potential collusion between SEBI officials and corporate players involved in the 1994 BSE listing. The timing of the order, issued on March 1, 2025, is notable: it came just one day after Madhabi Puri Buch’s six-year term as SEBI Chairperson ended on February 28, 2025. This proximity has fueled speculation about whether the case reflects broader dissatisfaction with her leadership, though the allegations predate her tenure, adding complexity to the narrative.
Now, investigators will dig deeper and report back in 30 days about what really happened.
Following the court’s directive, the Anti-Corruption Bureau is now responsible for delving into the specifics of the allegations. The FIR has been ordered under multiple legal provisions, including sections of the Indian Penal Code (for fraud and corruption), the Prevention of Corruption Act (for abuse of public office), and the SEBI Act (for regulatory breaches). The investigation will seek to uncover the full scope of the alleged misconduct—whether it was isolated to the 1994 incident or indicative of broader systemic issues—and determine the culpability of the named individuals. The court has taken an active oversight role, requiring the ACB to submit a status report within 30 days, by early April 2025, ensuring that the probe remains on track and that findings are transparently reviewed. Meanwhile, SEBI has signaled its intent to challenge the order, arguing that the accused were not in office during the relevant period and that the court did not adequately hear their side before ruling.
