Discuss the quasi-judicial and adjudicatory powers of SEBI with reference to recent settlement orders in the Adani-Hindenburg case.

SEBI is not merely a rule-maker; under the SEBI Act, 1992 it also investigates, adjudicates and settles securities-law violations. Its September 2026 orders settling Hindenburg-linked proceedings against five listed Adani entities illustrate both the reach and the limits of this quasi-judicial role.

Sources of SEBI's quasi-judicial and adjudicatory powers

• Adjudication: adjudicating officers appointed under the SEBI Act determine violations and impose monetary penalties after a show-cause notice and hearing.
• Directions and enforcement: whole-time members can pass debarment, disgorgement and cease-and-desist orders for breaches of the LODR Regulations, 2015, which mandate related-party disclosure and peer-reviewed audit reports [1].
• Settlement: the SEBI (Settlement Proceedings) Regulations, 2018 allow proceedings to be closed on payment, without admitting or denying findings [2], with amounts computed from a formula available through SEBI's public Settlement Calculator [3].
• Orders are appealable to the Securities Appellate Tribunal, preserving natural justice.

How these powers worked in the Adani-Hindenburg matter

• The January 2023 Hindenburg report triggered investigations; SEBI publicly rebutted the 2024 follow-up report concerning its own chairperson [4].
• Its 2025 order examined an Adicorp-linked flow of ₹1,282 crore between related entities and lapses such as undisclosed related-party transactions (FY2013) and non-peer-reviewed audit reports across group companies [1].
• In Vishal Tiwari v. Union of India (2024), the Supreme Court refused transfer to an SIT/CBI, directed SEBI to complete its pending probes in three months, and confined judicial review to arbitrariness — affirming SEBI as the primary adjudicator [5].

Concerns

• Settlement amounts of roughly a crore rupees sit against transactions of several hundred crore, raising deterrence questions.
• Consent orders yield no reasoned finding, so precedent and investor remedies are weakened, and a FY2013 lapse closing in 2026 dilutes timeliness.

SEBI's adjudicatory architecture has matured into a credible, court-endorsed enforcement chain. Strengthening it now requires faster disposal, calibrated settlement amounts, and non-monetary compliance undertakings alongside payment — so that disclosure norms remain a governance obligation rather than a manageable cost, consistent with the investor-protection mandate of the SEBI Act.