Supreme Court Refuses Mahua Moitra Plea for Public Disclosure of AIF and FPI Owners

The Supreme Court of India has refused to order the markets regulator, SEBI, to mandate full public disclosure of the ultimate beneficial owners and portfolios of alternative investment funds (AIFs) and foreign portfolio investors (FPIs). On Thursday, October 29, 2026, a three-judge bench disposed of the writ petition filed by Trinamool Congress MP Mahua Moitra.

The bench and the order

The bench comprised Justice BV Nagarathna, Justice R Mahadevan and Justice DK Upadhyaya. The case was Mahua Moitra v. Union of India. In its order, quoted by LiveLaw, the bench said: "We find that in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 32 of the Constitution such a prayer cannot be granted for the reason that the framework of full disclosure as sought for by the petitioner herein would mandate an existing legal framework or regulations. In the absence of such a legal framework or regulation the Court cannot direct public disclosure of ultimate beneficial owners etc."

The court added: "In the absence of any such framework this Court cannot exercise its discretion and issue a writ of mandamus to respondents to mandate a full public disclosure." LawBeat reported the same refusal on the same day, noting that the court said it was for the government to see whether a framework is required.

What the court found on disclosure

Examining SEBI's reply, the court found that there is presently no legal framework to mandate public disclosure of entity-wise investments. It noted that disclosures of investments by every AIF and FPI are in fact made to SEBI and to custodians, which enables regulation.

The arguments

Advocate Prashant Bhushan, for Moitra, argued that the lack of public disclosure of ultimate beneficial owners had created opacity in the stock market and enabled potential manipulation. He said a disclosure requirement that existed earlier was given up in 2018, after which entities were only required to comply with the Prevention of Money Laundering Act. Bhushan told the court: "These people who are investing into our companies through foreign entities, we don't know who they are and whether they are violating SEBI regulations. Today there is a lot of suspicion that stock markets are being manipulated by these companies which are investing huge sums."

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta submitted that the reliefs sought had implications for the national economy and that all relevant disclosures were already being made to SEBI and the custodians. The petitioner, he said, wanted them to be made public.

Moitra's petition argued that AIFs and FPIs, unlike mutual funds, are largely exempt from stringent public disclosure norms, and that this opacity increases the risks of market manipulation, money laundering and tax evasion and undermines market integrity. The petition said the lack of public disclosure on two fronts, ultimate beneficial owners and monthly portfolio holdings, "poses serious threats to financial stability and economic sovereignty."

The road to Thursday

In April 2026, the court directed Moitra to make a formal representation to SEBI regarding her petition on enhancing transparency and investor awareness, and clarified that once she submitted it, SEBI would consider it in accordance with law. Bhushan made that representation, and Moitra then challenged SEBI's reply in the present petition. The court has now disposed of that petition, leaving any disclosure framework to the government.