Viceroy disputes ex-CJI Chandrachud’s legal opinion in Vedanta case

The controversy surrounding the Vedanta Group has deepened with US-based short seller Viceroy Research sharply contesting the legal opinion offered by former Chief Justice of India (CJI) D.Y. Chandrachud.

The former CJI had dismissed Viceroy’s explosive report on Vedanta as lacking credibility and accused the firm of operating with “dubious credentials”. In a strongly worded rebuttal, Viceroy has hit back, accusing Justice Chandrachud of failing to engage with the substance of its allegations.

Viceroy Research, which had earlier published a damning report on Vedanta Resources Ltd on 9 July, alleged serious financial fraud, questionable dividend payments, and misuse of subsidiary funds.

It specifically targeted billionaire promoter Anil Agarwal and his sprawling corporate empire, describing it as a “house of cards built on unsustainable debt, looted assets, and accounting fiction”.

In its latest statement, Viceroy claims that Chandrachud’s legal opinion, released on 19 July, side-stepped these concerns entirely. The firm said the opinion “fails to refute, investigate, verify, or even engage with a single substantive financial allegation,” adding that it was a “transparent attempt at character assassination dressed in legal language.”

The short seller further alleged that Chandrachud’s opinion offered “no answers” to the questions raised, and it dismissed the former CJI’s legal note as an “allegation baseless”, ironically echoing Vedanta’s own earlier defence.

Chandrachud, in his opinion commissioned by Vedanta, had stated unequivocally that Viceroy’s report lacked credibility. He pointed to the firm’s past conduct, asserting that it has a “track record of taking short positions in listed companies and publishing misleading reports for personal gain”.

He also highlighted Viceroy’s use of inflammatory terms such as “ponzi scheme” and “parasite”, which he said were designed to damage Vedanta’s business reputation.

Stressing the legal nature of his role, the former CJI clarified that his opinion was grounded solely in law, based on available documents, and protected by professional privilege. “It is inappropriate to discuss the opinion pertaining to it in public realm,” he said, while maintaining that Vedanta’s financial statements were transparent and in compliance with legal standards.

Viceroy had taken a short position in Vedanta’s UK-listed bonds prior to releasing its report—a move that has drawn scrutiny. Chandrachud pointed out that the short seller appeared to be taking advantage of the fall in Vedanta’s share price following the publication.

The report accused the group of financially draining its Indian subsidiary, Vedanta Ltd (VEDL), to support the UK-based parent company, Vedanta Resources Ltd (VRL), thereby endangering lenders’ ability to recover dues.

Despite these claims, Vedanta has consistently dismissed the report as “a malicious combination of selective misinformation and baseless allegations.” It has also stated that the authors of the report made no attempt to contact the company for clarification before publication.

Former trial court judge Rishabh Gandhi, founder of Rishabh Gandhi & Associates, has supported Justice Chandrachud’s legal note. Gandhi described it as an independent legal opinion “based on detailed documents, statutory interpretation, and legal precedent,” intended to assess the legality of corporate actions such as dividend decisions or board resolutions.

Meanwhile, Viceroy remains unrelenting in its criticism, arguing that the legal note focused narrowly on managerial process and failed to contest its underlying findings. “When faced with serious allegations backed by detailed financial evidence, the company responded not with transparency, but with legal spin,” the firm stated.

Mint reported that Vedanta did not issue an immediate response when approached for comments on Viceroy’s counter to the legal opinion. As the public spat unfolds, investors and regulators will be closely watching how this corporate drama evolves.

For now, the clash between a former Chief Justice and a controversial short seller underscores the growing friction between corporate India and its increasingly global critics—raising larger questions about transparency, credibility, and the role of legal opinion in high-stakes financial disputes.