Is levy of penalty mandatory and inevitable? – mindless/rote application of Supreme Court decision in Shriram?


(Note:- This article is my latest contribution to my monthly column on Securities Laws in Bombay Chartered Accountants’ Journal)

Penalty is mandatory
because Supreme Court says so, SEBI consistently and incorrectly holds
Almost
each and every SEBI order levying penalty relies on a Supreme Court decision in
Shriram’s case (SEBI vs. Shri Ram Mutual Fund (2006) 68 SCL 216). The reliance
is for, it is submitted, an incorrect justification that since there is a
violation, then penalty has
to follow. Not only is mens rea
(guilty intent) irrelevant, it is stated, but the penalty has to mandatorily
follow any violation. Further, mitigating factors are irrelevant. In short, it
is put forth, in the name and finality of a Supreme Court decision, that in
case of proceedings for levy of penalty, penalty is mandatory and the
Adjudicating Officer has no discretion in the matter. How far a correct
conclusion is this? How far should a person who has not filed a document late,
or made some errors in some filings, etc. resign himself to a penalty in all
circumstances?

As
stated, for this purpose, SEBI almost always cites a single sentence from the
Shri Ram case as if by mindless rote. Here is one example from a recent SEBI
Order (in matter of M/s. Vizwise Commerce Private Limited, Order No.
JJ/AM/AO-117/2014, dated 28th August 2014).

“In
the matter of SEBI Vs. Shri Ram Mutual Fund (2006) 68 SCL 216 (SC), the Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India has held that “In
our considered opinion, penalty is attracted as soon as the contravention of
the statutory obligation as contemplated by the Act and the regulation is
established
and hence the intention of the parties committing such
violation becomes wholly irrelevant”. (emphasis supplied)

With
such words, it would appear inevitable that even in cases of mere clerical
violations, liability is strict and absolute and there is no escape to levy penalty.
However, the matter does not end there. Next cited are the powers of SEBI to
levy huge penalties. Most provisions allow levy of penalty of upto Rs. 25
crores or a Rs. 1 lakh per day. Citing the decision and such penal provisions, large
penalties running into several lakhs are levied, which, if one compares with huge
and absolute powers SEBI has, would sound almost lenient.

The
mitigating factors, even if pleaded by the party, are usually brushed aside, as
if the hands of SEBI are tied in view of the clear mandate of the Supreme
Court.

The
alleged defaulter, in the face of such words of the Supreme Court, is
demoralized and believes that there is no point in filing an appeal before the
Securities Appellate Tribunal. It also so happens that the SAT in recent times
rarely reduces or reverses such penalty. Thus, it is common to see scores of
orders passed every week with relatively large amount of penalties. To be sure, SEBI does consider the facts of the case, and applies (as we will discuss) the provisions of Section 15J. But the quote in Shriram looms fairly large and heavy and, to many, would appear to shut out further consideration.

Is penalty inevitable? What did Supreme
Court really say?
However,
is levy of penalty so inevitable? Has the Supreme Court made the issue so absolute?
Or are the words of the Court cited out of context? It is submitted that
Supreme Court has really held something different. Moreover, it has itself
considered mitigating factors and has not wholly ruled out bonafide intention.
The Court has also not relieved SEBI/Adjudicating Officer from exercising judicial
discretion and stated that he may choose not to levy penalty in
appropriate cases.

Let
us review very briefly the reported facts of Shriram’s case. Shriram was a
mutual fund. Provisions made by SEBI prohibited a mutual fund from dealing with
stock brokers beyond 5% of its aggregate sales/purchases. It was an admitted
fact that in 12 instances Shriram violated this limit. Penalty was levied. Shriram
pleaded (before the SAT, the appellant did not appear before the Supreme Court)
that the violation was not intentional and there were certain genuine
circumstances that required them to deal with such brokers beyond the maximum
limits. The SAT set aside the order of penalty “on the purported ground that the penalty to be
imposed for failure to perform a statutory obligation is a matter of
discretion. The Tribunal has held that the penalty is warranted by the quantum
which has to be decided by taking into consideration the factors stated in
section 15J” (in the words of the Supreme Court).

Question of law
The Supreme Court phrased
the “question of law” before it in the following words:-

“The important question of
law which arises for consideration in the present appeal is whether the
Tribunal was justified in allowing the appeals of the respondent herein and
that whether once it is conclusively established that the Mutual Fund has
violated the terms of the Certificate of Registration and the Statutory
Regulations, i.e., the SEBI (Mutual Funds) Regulation, 1996, the
imposition of penalty becomes a sine qua non of the violation. In
other words, the breach of a civil obligation which attracts penalty in the
nature of fine under the provisions of the Act and the regulations would
immediately attract the levy of penalty irrespective
of the fact whether the contravention was made by the defaulter with any guilty
intention or not
.” (emphasis supplied).

Thus, as will seen later,
the question before the Court was whether, once a violation is established,
does penalty have to follow or does it would also have to be established that
the defaulter had a guilty intention?

What Supreme Court held
It is in this light that
the Court reviewed the framework of the Act. It pointed out that broadly there
were two sets of proceedings under the Act – one under which penalty is levied in
civil proceedings and others which are criminal proceedings. For imposing
penalty in civil proceedings, proof of a guilty intention is not required, while
it is mandatory in case of criminal proceedings.

Since
in the present case, the proceedings were for levy of penalty under civil
proceedings, there was no need to prove that Shriram had a guilty intention. It
was sufficient to show that the violation was established. Since this was done,
penalty was leviable. However, is this the end of the matter? Is “intention”
wholly irrelevant? Are other factors including mitigating factors wholly
irrelevant? It is submitted this is not so and not only does the Act provide
otherwise, but even the Supreme Court does not say so, as is implied in SEBI
orders.

Factors to be considered for deciding
quantum of penalty or waiving it
That
penalty is not so inevitable is apparent from the SEBI Act itself. Section 15J
makes it clear that, in adjudication proceedings, the Officer shall have due regard to certain
factors. The section reads as under (emphasis supplied):-

While adjudging quantum of
penalty
under section 15-I, the Adjudicating Officer shall have the due regard to the following
factors, namely :-
(a )the amount of disproportionate gain or unfair advantage, wherever
quantifiable, made as a result of the default;
(b)the amount of loss caused to an investor or group of investors
as a result of the default;
(c )the repetitive nature of
the default.”

Thus,
the Act itself mandates the Adjudicating Officer to consider these three
factors. This was recognized in Shriram
too.

It
is also submitted that in appropriate cases levy of zero penalty is also
appropriate. It is also submitted that other factors, apart from these three
statutory factors, would also be relevant, depending on facts of each case.
This is also evident from decision of Supreme Court in Shriram itself.

For
example, the Supreme Court noted that “there has been a clear violation of the statutory
regulations and provisions repetitively, covering a period of 6
quarters”. In other words, the fact that the violations were repetitive over 6
quarters was highlighted.

The Supreme Court also
reviewed the circumstances in the case to show that there were no extraordinary
circumstances mitigating the violation. The Court observed, “The facts and
circumstances of the present case in no way indicate the existence of special
circumstances so as to waive the
penalty
imposed by the adjudicating officer”. Again, this shows two
things. Had there been special facts/circumstances shown, they, firstly, would
have to be considered. Secondly, appropriate circumstances would justify waiver
of the penalty too. Indeed, the Court went ahead and observed that the Officer
had indeed considered all the circumstances before levy of penalty which too
was below the maximum amount.

Curiously, the Court even
noted that the violation was wilful.
The Court observed, “Hence, we hold that the respondents have wilfully violated statutory
provisions with impunity and,
hence, the imposition of
penalty was fully justified.” One wonders, if it was so clear that wilful
intent is totally irrelevant, why was such factor needed to be considered? If
it can be clearly established in a particular case that there was no wilful
violation, would penalty not be leviable? Or at least penalty would be reduced?
In other words, absence of mens rea is not wholly irrelevant, as SEBI orders
suggest.

In
light of this, it is submitted that the consistent stand of SEBI that violation
has to result in penalty is wrong in law and its reliance on Shriram, far from being correct, is
actually wrong and goes against what the Court held in that case. It is
submitted that SEBI has to consider all mitigating factors before levy of
penalty. If the appellant demonstrates that he did not have guilty intention,
that too has to be judicially considered. Further, SEBI has full discretion to
levy a nominal penalty or even waive penalty altogether. SEBI also has to
consider the three factors that Section 15J prescribes. The defaulter would also
be right in questioning an order of penalty on grounds that there were
mitigating circumstances or that such circumstances were not appreciated by
SEBI. It is thus high time that the ghost of Shriram that haunts adjudication proceedings is exorcised, either
by SEBI itself, or through a strong appeal before SAT/Supreme Court. And
justice, sense of fair play and absence of arbitrariness be restored in
adjudication proceedings.

Endnote:-
It is worth drawing attention to a recent amendment to penalty provisions made
by the Securities Laws Amendment Act 2014, notified on 25th August 2014. By
this, most provisions relating to penalties now provide that a minimum penalty
of Rs. 1 lakh would be leviable. It is submitted that even despite such
provision, the ratio of Shriram
continues to be valid. SEBI has to consider all circumstances even for levy of
minimum penalty. And that SEBI continues to have power to waive penalty
altogether.

About the author

CA Jayant Thakur

1 comment

Subscribe to Blog via Email

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Recent Posts

Topics

Recent Comments

Archives

web analytics