Disclosure of non-relied materials is mandated only at the adjudication stage, not during pending investigations.

The Appellant, a former Whole Time Director of IndusInd Bank, was implicated in a suo motu preliminary examination by SEBI regarding alleged insider trading.

On March 10, 2025, the Bank announced a significant adverse impact on its net worth due to derivative portfolio discrepancies; SEBI identified this as Unpublished Price Sensitive Information (UPSI) that existed from March 4, 2025.

SEBI issued an ex-parte interim order on May 28, 2025, impounding ₹14.39 Crores and barring the Appellant from the securities market.

The Appellant sought inspection of extensive documents, notably a 1.7 TB "email dump" of bank officials, which SEBI denied, claiming the data was voluminous, confidential, and held in a fiduciary capacity.

The Appellant challenged SEBI’s communications fixing a hearing date and requested a directive for complete document disclosure.

Whether the Appellant is entitled to the disclosure and inspection of all materials in SEBI's possession, including the entire 1.7 TB email dump, at the pre-adjudication/investigation stage.

Whether the non-disclosure of documents not specifically relied upon by SEBI in its interim order constitutes a violation of the principles of natural justice.

The Tribunal primarily applied the principles regarding the right to disclosure established in T. Takano v. SEBI, which distinguishes between the "investigation" stage and the "adjudication" stage, holding that while materials relied upon must be disclosed to issue a show-cause notice (SCN), all relevant information must be disclosed once adjudication proceedings commence.

It further referenced Natwar Singh v. Director of Enforcement regarding the stage-specific nature of disclosure.

Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad v. B. Karunakar, stipulating that non-disclosure only vitiates proceedings if the aggrieved party proves actual prejudice.

The Tribunal also noted State of Tamil Nadu v. Abdullah Kadher Batcha regarding the necessity of documents for making an effective representation.

The Tribunal focused on the "stage" of the legal proceedings to determine the extent of disclosure required.

It observed that SEBI is currently in the investigation phase and has not yet issued a Show Cause Notice (SCN) to initiate formal adjudication.

While the Appellant argued that the full email dump was necessary to explain why the ex-parte order was untenable, the Tribunal noted that SEBI had already provided all documents and specific emails actually "relied upon" to form its interim opinion.

Applying the T. Takano standard, the Tribunal reasoned that the right to access the entire "relevant" investigative pool (as opposed to just "relied upon" material) only ripens at the adjudication stage.

Since the Appellant failed to show that the provided documents were insufficient for a representation at this preliminary stage, the demand for 1.7 TB of data was deemed premature.

The Tribunal found that because the Appellant had been supplied with all materials actually relied upon by SEBI, no prejudice was caused at this stage.

Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the prayers to compel further inspection and set aside the hearing communications were rejected.