New Delhi, Oct. 11 -- The Supreme Court on Friday refused to entertain a public interest litigation (PIL) seeking a court-monitored probe into allegations made by US-based short-seller Viceroy Research LLC against Vedanta Ltd, Hindustan Zinc Ltd, Vedanta Resources Ltd, and related entities. A bench of Justices PS Narasimha and AS Chandurkar said it was not inclined to hear the matter, prompting petitioner Shakti Bhatia to withdraw the plea. Appearing for the petitioner, senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan said the petition merely sought a direction to the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) and the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) to act on complaints already submitted to them. "The relief is narrow.we are not asking the court to presume wrongdoing or monitor an inquiry like in the Adani-Hindenburg case. We only want regulators to discharge their statutory duties," he told the bench. Sankaranarayanan said Viceroy had submitted detailed complaints to SEBI and RBI, and that the petitioner had independently verified parts of the report through public filings. He clarified that the plea did not endorse Viceroy's conclusions or accuse Vedanta of any wrongdoing but sought regulatory scrutiny of credible material. Opposing the plea, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the Centre, questioned its bona fides, claiming it appeared to have been orchestrated by Viceroy itself. "After the PIL was filed, it was Viceroy -- not the petitioner, that wrote to SEBI about the filing. This shows the petitioner was only a name-lender," he said. Mehta warned of a "pattern" in which foreign short-sellers publish damaging reports to influence the Indian stock market and then "amplify the effect through litigation". "Those sitting abroad cannot take the Supreme Court on a joyride," remarked Mehta, adding that regulators were free to examine complaints if they found merit in them. The court, agreeing with the Centre's submission, declined to entertain the plea, leading to its withdrawal. Two other benches had earlier recused from hearing the matter. The controversy originates from an 87-page report published by Viceroy on July 9, 2025, titled "Vedanta - Limited Resources", accusing Vedanta and its affiliates of large-scale financial irregularities and regulatory violations. The report claimed that Vedanta Resources Limited functioned as a "parasite" holding company sustained by cash from its "dying host" Vedanta Ltd. It alleged violations of SEBI's Prohibition of Fraudulent and Unfair Trade Practices Regulations, misrepresentation in financial disclosures, diversion of funds through related-party transactions, and misuse of dividends. It further accused Vedanta of failing to disclose material events, using opaque audit structures, inflating valuations, and routing donations to promoter-linked entities. The report triggered an 8% fall in Vedanta's share price on the day of its release, following which Viceroy wrote to SEBI and RBI. When no action followed, it made the complaints public. Vedanta Limited later sought a legal opinion from former Chief Justice of India Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, who dismissed the report as defamatory and baseless. In a 20-page opinion dated July 18, the former CJI described the publication as a "clear instance of market manipulation intended to profit from a fall in Vedanta's stock." "The report lacks credibility. Viceroy has a history of taking short positions and then publishing misleading reports to profit unlawfully," the opinion said. Justice Chandrachud noted that the report's language, describing Vedanta as a "parasite" and a "Ponzi scheme," was "unsubstantiated and legally actionable." The former CJI concluded that all five elements of defamation were met and that Vedanta was "well placed" to pursue both civil and criminal remedies. The opinion also cited earlier actions against Viceroy, including a $50 million fine by South Africa's regulator over its Capitec Bank report, a US defamation suit by Medical Properties Trust, and a Delhi High Court decree in Ebixcash World Money Ltd vs Fraser Perring (2020), finding deliberate defamation of another Indian firm. Justice Chandrachud found no evidence of non-compliance by Vedanta, observing that the firm operated within a "robust and multi-layered regulatory framework."...