Greater Noida(Business Desk):Vedanta Limited (NSE: VEDL), India’s leading critical minerals, energy transition metals, power and technology conglomerate, has received unanimous support with a detailed legal opinion from Former Chief Justice of India, Hon’ble Dr. Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, stating that the recent report by US-based short-seller Viceroy Research Group is defamatory, lacks credibility, is designed to manipulate the market for unlawful financial gain, and does not stand up to legal scrutiny under Indian jurisprudence.
The 20-page opinion, confirms that the Viceroy report satisfies the elements of both civil and criminal defamation. He noted that the Viceroy report employs “inflammatory and defamatory” language and includes gratuitous references and innuendos without substantiation. The former Chief Justice of India emphasized that such language intends to sensationalize rather than present a fair, balanced view. He concluded that the document presents an entirely one-sided and distorted picture of Vedanta’s business and governance practices, lacking “any semblance of due process”. The ex-Chief Justice’s opinion can be accessed here:
https://www.vedantalimited.com/public/uploads/15966/VEDLSEIntimationLegalOpinion18July2025signed.pdf
Justice Chandrachud further noted that Viceroy has a history of similar conduct globally, taking short positions in listed entities and publishing misleading reports to profit from the resulting panic. He cited litigations and penalties against Viceroy, including a $50 million fine imposed by South Africa’s financial regulator for market distortion, a defamatory lawsuit for a similar ‘short-and-distort’ scheme in the US and in India as well.
In particular, the opinion outlines three specific reasons why the Viceroy report lacks credibility: first, the established track record of Viceroy in profiteering from short-selling through such reports; second, the dubious credentials of the researchers behind the publication; and third, the suspicious timing of the report’s release, coinciding closely with Vedanta’s proposed demerger, that if successful may result in market upswing, and losses to short sellers. These demonstrate an ulterior motive behind its publication.
Justice Chandrachud has also outlined what appears to be a consistent modus operandi employed by Viceroy: first, taking short positions in the stock or bonds of the target company (in this instance, Vedanta Resources); second, publishing a so-called “research” report with distorted facts based on publicly available information, without seeking any independent verification from the company; and third, profiting from the resulting fall in stock prices caused by the panic their report triggers. In his opinion, “the ingredients required to establish defamation are met in the present case.”
He further observed that Viceroy, being a known short-seller, has a well-documented pattern of releasing such market-disruptive reports to influence share prices, making it aware of the foreseeable reputational damage to the targeted entity. In Vedanta’s case also, the statements in the report have attempted to damage to corporate credibility.
Justice Chandrachud also stated that the false and misleading statements made in the Viceroy report directly target Vedanta and could attract legal consequences under India’s defamation laws. He further noted that Vedanta would be well within its rights to initiate proceedings against both the organisation and its researchers.
Indian companies, particularly listed companies operate in a tightly regulated environment through the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI), a statutory body which operates under the Ministry of Finance, the Reserve Bank of India, which oversees banking and non-banking financial institutions, along with the Ministry of Corporate Affairs and the Registrar of Companies, who monitor corporate governance and compliance. Despite this well-structured system, malicious and misleading reports such as the one published by Viceroy seek to dilute confidence in India’s corporate governance standards by falsely portraying regulated entities like Vedanta as non-compliant. Such attempts not only aim to damage the reputation of individual companies but also undermine the integrity of India’s regulatory institutions and erode trust in its markets.
The Former CJI categorically affirmed that Vedanta operates under a robust and multi-layered regulatory framework in India. With no adverse findings from any statutory regulator or rating agency, and with full compliance on disclosures and audit procedures, there is no credible basis in the report to trigger any regulatory concern.
Since the report came out, global brokerage firms including JP Morgan, Bank of America and Barclays have rejected the report and maintained their positive ratings on Vedanta, citing the company’s improved credit profile and attractive valuation. In addition, rating agencies CRISIL and ICRA reaffirmed their credit ratings for Vedanta. CRISIL maintained AA rating for Vedanta and AAA for Hindustan Zinc Ltd, while ICRA maintained Vedanta’s rating at AA.
