By Jayant M. Thakur, Chartered Accountant
BACKGROUND
A recent SEBI Order on alleged misleading price-sensitive news by a journalist of a leading TV channel has wider ramifications. Not just news media but also companies, their senior executives, advisors of various forms and, more particularly in recent times, social media ‘influencers’ may need to consider the reasoning offered here. There is now even a word coined for this fast-growing group of social media influencers in investing –
finfluencers (i.e. finance + influencers). While SEBI let off the journalist, and rightly so on the facts, the reasons provided for differentiating this case are noteworthy. Effectively, SEBI has laid down certain general principles on how communications to the public by various parties may be viewed. When would a person communicating to the public, in general, be said to have been misleading, acting fraudulently, acting recklessly, etc., to the point of becoming a violation of the law? The decision could help in answering these questions. And this would be relevant for persons including, say, the Chairman/CEO of a company (there is a case earlier where SEBI held him liable, only to find its Order reversed on appeal), the company secretary who communicates to the exchanges, various forms of advisors and ‘experts’ (registered with SEBI or not), etc.
The Order is also interesting since a core question raised was the constitutional guarantee of free speech, and it was clai
