In a strongly worded joint statement, Securities and Exchange Board of India (Sebi) Chairperson Madhabi Puri Buch and her husband Dhaval Buch have categorically denied the allegations of conflict of interest that have been circulating in recent days. The accusations, brought forth by the Congress party, center around Dhaval’s professional engagements with several high-profile companies and suggest that his consultancy roles may have benefitted from his wife’s position as the head of India’s securities market regulator. However, the Buchs have labeled the allegations as “completely false, malicious, and defamatory," stressing that they lack any factual basis.
The controversy began when questions were raised regarding Dhaval Buch’s consultancy contracts with firms such as Mahindra & Mahindra, Pidilite, Dr. Reddy’s, and Alvarez & Marsal. Critics insinuated that his consultancy might have been influenced by Madhabi’s powerful role at Sebi, potentially creating a conflict of interest. The Buchs’ statement refuted these claims outright, explaining that Dhaval’s assignments were purely merit-based, secured through his extensive experience in supply chain management and corporate governance, and had nothing to do with his wife’s position at Sebi.
"It is deeply unfortunate that such baseless assumptions are being made, implying that a spouse’s career success is directly tied to their partner’s professional standing," the Buchs said. "This overlooks Dhaval’s decades of experience and the expertise he brings to these firms. His consulting contracts were awarded based solely on professional merit, well before Madhabi assumed her role as Sebi Chairperson."
Mahindra & Mahindra, the largest client of Dhaval’s consulting firm, Agora Advisory, also issued a statement defending the integrity of the contract. The company explained that Dhaval Buch had been hired in 2019 for his expertise in transforming supply chains, a critical area for the company, and that the consultancy was entirely based on his qualifications, not on any perceived political or regulatory connections. Similarly, Pidilite and Dr. Reddy’s issued statements affirming that their contracts with Dhaval Buch were independent of Madhabi Puri Buch’s role and were based on his professional qualifications.
The controversy extended beyond Dhaval Buch’s consultancy work, with critics raising concerns about the couple’s rental income from a property leased to a Wockhardt associate. Allegations suggested that this arrangement could be perceived as a conflict of interest, given Sebi’s regulatory oversight of Wockhardt. However, the Buchs clarified that Madhabi had no involvement in any investigations related to Wockhardt and that the rental agreement was fully disclosed to Sebi, with all necessary legal and financial transparency maintained.
"From the moment Madhabi was appointed as a Whole-Time Member of Sebi in 2017, we have ensured full compliance with the disclosure norms, including reporting on the property’s market value and the rental income derived from it," the Buchs explained. "There has been no breach of rules, and any suggestions to the contrary are unfounded."
Additionally, the couple addressed the controversy surrounding Madhabi Puri Buch’s Employee Stock Options (ESOPs) from her time at ICICI Bank. Allegations claimed that there were irregularities in how these options were exercised, with critics suggesting that the ESOPs should have been exercised within three months. In their statement, the Buchs clarified that ICICI Bank’s rules allowed retired employees, like Madhabi, to exercise their vested options over ten years, dismissing any notion of impropriety.
"The allegations regarding the ESOPs are factually incorrect," they asserted. "ICICI Bank’s policy clearly allows retired employees to exercise their stock options over a ten-year period, not three months as some have falsely claimed. These accusations are not only misleading but demonstrate a lack of understanding of the rules governing such financial arrangements."
The joint statement also expressed deep disappointment over the politicization of the issue, with the Buchs accusing those behind the allegations of attempting to tarnish their reputations for political gain. They described the accusations as part of a broader attempt to erode trust in public institutions like Sebi, which plays a crucial role in regulating India’s financial markets.
"These allegations are not only an attack on us personally but also an attack on the integrity of India’s institutions," they said. "It is unfortunate that such false and misleading claims are being used to undermine the public’s confidence in Sebi and the important work it does to ensure transparency and fairness in the financial markets."
They went on to underscore their commitment to ethical conduct and transparency, reiterating that all necessary disclosures had been made to the relevant authorities. The Buchs expressed frustration that despite their compliance with all regulatory norms, they had become targets of what they called a politically motivated smear campaign.
"Making such baseless allegations not only harms individuals but also disrespects the extensive legal frameworks that govern public officials and institutions in India," the Buchs added. "We have always adhered to the highest standards of ethics, transparency, and accountability, and we will continue to do so despite these unfounded attacks on our integrity."
The controversy has sparked broader discussions around conflict of interest in India’s public offices and corporate governance. With the Buchs’ firm rejection of the allegations and the support from the companies involved, it remains to be seen whether the accusations will gain further political traction or fade in light of the rebuttals provided. For now, the Buchs have made it clear that they are standing by their record and are prepared to defend their reputation against what they see as a campaign of misinformation.
Â
