2025:BHC-OS:15915-DB IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.84 OF 2024 ALONG WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO.1504 OF 2025 Chandrakant C. Shah, ]

R/of Royal Touch Yogi Hills, ] .. Petitioner /

Mulund (W), Mumbai ] Applicant Versus

1. Securities and Exchange Board of India, ]

Through its Chairperson, ] SEBI Bhavan BKC, Bandra (E), Mumbai ]

2. Association of Mutual Funds in India, ]

Through its Chief Executive, ] Naman Corporate Link, BKC, ]

Bandra (E), Mumbai ] .. Respondents Mr. Abhishek Venkataraman, Amicus Curiae and Mr. Viswajit, Advocate are present in Court.

Mr. Chandrakant C. Shah, Petitioner-Applicant is present in person.

Mr. Vishal Kanade with Ms. Nidhi Singh, Ms. Hubab Sayyed, Mr. Nishin Shrikhande and Ms. Nidhi Faganiya, Advocates, i/b Vidhi Partners, for respondent No.1-SEBI.

Mr. Niket Mehta, Advocate, i/b Cyril Amarchand Mangaldas, for respondent No.2-AMFI.

CORAM : SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR, CJ. &

GAUTAM A. ANKHAD, J.

DATE : 17TH SEPTEMBER 2025.

Per, Gautam A. Ankhad, J.

The petitioner has filed the present Public Interest Litigation under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ directing the respondent no.1-Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) to revoke the liberty granted to the respondent no.2-Association of Mutual Funds in India (AMFI) for carrying out investor education and awareness initiatives /

programs. The main grievance of the petitioner is that the respondent no.2 should be restrained from continuing its advertisement campaigns titled “Mutual Funds Sahi Hai”, “Mutual Funds Mein SIP Sahi Hai” and “Be Patient and Stay Invested”. According to the petitioner, these campaigns are reckless, misleading, and create a false impression of assured financial safety in the minds of general public in mutual fund investments. It is submitted that this campaign neither educates the investors nor does it disclose the risks inherent in the sale and purchase of mutual funds.

2. The petitioner further contends that the respondent no.1, has failed to monitor or regulate the respondent no.2’s advertisement campaigns over the past seven years in its capacity as the regulator of the securities and capital market in India. Both respondents nos.1 and 2 have neglected their duties, as the campaigns are designed primarily to serve the interests of the respondent no.2’s members who are mutual fund companies, rather than the investors/ general public. The petitioner’s complaints to the respondents have not been replied to even though such serious issues have been raised by the petitioner. Since the respondent no.2 falls within the regulatory jurisdiction of the respondent no.1, SEBI’s inaction amounts to a breach of its statutory obligations under the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 (in short, SEBI Act). Hence this petition.

3. Mr. Vishal Kanade, learned counsel for the respondent no.1 (SEBI), submits that the present petition is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed with costs. He points out that the petitioner had earlier filed Public Interest Litigation No.26 of

2025 raising similar issues, which was dismissed by this Court on 17^th April 2025 and the Special Leave Petition (No.13341 of 2025) arising therefrom was dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on 14^th July 2025. In view of the above, he submits that the present petition ought to be dismissed at the threshold.

4. We have heard the petitioner in-person, learned counsels for the parties as well as the learned amicus curiae, Mr. Abhishek Venkatraman. We have perused the record and find no merit in this petition. Amongst other things, in a PIL, the Court is required to be satisfied about (a) the credentials of the petitioner / applicant; (b) the prima facie correctness or nature of information given by him; and (c) the information being not vague and indefinite. But none of the above foundational parameters are satisfied in the present case.

5. The petitioner is a qualified Chartered A