Delhi High Court Dismisses PIL Against IFCI's ₹440.93 Cr NSE Share Sale For Petitioner's Forum Shopping

On 19 August, the Delhi High Court dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) challenging IFCI Ltd's sale of shares in the National Stock Exchange of India Ltd (NSE), holding that the petitioner had suppressed an earlier proceeding before the Bombay High Court on the same issue.

A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia held that the petitioner's suppression of the earlier proceeding disentitled him to relief and imposed exemplary costs of Rs. 5 lakh on him, payable to the Delhi High Court Bar Clerks' Association within two weeks. It observed:

"In these circumstances, we do not consider it necessary or appropriate to examine the merits of the allegations concerning IFCI's divestment of its shareholding in NSE. Having regard to the suppression of material facts, we are satisfied that the Petitioner has approached this Court with unclean hands and has indulged in forum shopping."

The PIL was filed by Parinay Sharma, who sought an inquiry into IFCI's divestment of 11.25 lakh NSE shares for Rs. 440.93 crore and disclosures concerning the ownership and ultimate beneficial ownership of the transferees.

IFCI held a 5.55% stake in NSE as of 31 March 2015. It sold 11.25 lakh NSE shares in four tranches during 2015-16 to DVI Fund, Soach Global and two undisclosed transferees for Rs. 440.93 crore.

Sharma submitted complaints to the Ministry of Finance and the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) on 5 June 2026. He alleged that IFCI had sold the shares below their comparable 2013 valuation, causing a notional loss of approximately Rs. 12,121.13 crore to IFCI and the public exchequer.

In its response dated 1 July 2026, IFCI maintained that the divestment had received approval from the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) and followed due process and competitive bidding.

NSE opposed the PIL, pointing out that Sharma had filed a similar writ petition before the Bombay High Court on 2 May 2026, seeking substantially similar reliefs. The Delhi PIL was instituted only on 5 August 2026, without disclosing the earlier proceeding.

The Court held that Rule 9(i)(h) required Sharma to disclose the earlier PIL. Instead, he made an incorrect statement on oath and failed to show the candour expected of a petitioner invoking the PIL jurisdiction. It held:

"The Petitioner, having failed to disclose the pendency of the Bombay Writ and having made an averment to the contrary on oath, cannot be said to have approached this Court with the candour expected of a litigant invoking PIL jurisdiction. Consequently, the present PIL is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone without consideration on merits at all."

Further, the Bench found that the Bombay writ petition and Delhi PIL substantially overlapped. It held that Sharma had attempted, through “clever drafting”, to camouflage the similarity between the two proceedings.

It consequently held that Sharma had not approached it bona fide or with clean hands and that the PIL amounted to forum shopping. It therefore declined to examine the merits of the allegations concerning IFCI's divestment of its NSE shareholding.

Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the PIL with exemplary costs of Rs. 5 lakh. It also declined Sharma's request to reduce the costs.

For Petitioner: Aarohi Bhalla, Senior Advocate, Yeshasvi Shrivastava, Advocate

For Union of India: Akash Vajpai, CGSC with Sarvesh Srivastava, GP and Priyanshu, Advocate for R-1 and R-2, Pratap Venugopal, Senior Advocate with Abhishek Baid, Mohit Kumar Bafna and Praneet Das, Advocates for R-3, Neeraj Malhotra, Senior Advocate with Raunak Dhillon, Madhavi Khanna, Aishwarya Gupta, Harshit and Nimish Kumar, Advocates for R-4, Akhilesh, SPP along with Anchal Kashyap, Advocate for R-6.