Are Indian regulators less accountable?

Case: SEBI vs Sahra.  How long can a case take? What was common knowledge, that Sahara was perhaps manipulating  the regulator seemed not to know or was not convincing.  Machinations, ended up in prolonged litigation. Now it is reported that the regulator says property does not match title deeds. They seem unable to establish just about anything pertaining to Sahara. How could one insubordinate , arrogant firm make a laughing stock of a team of about 30 brilliant regulator officials? Is it fear or indifference or incapability? Or is it masterly inactivity? There is nothing in the laws that does not give the regulator teeth. 

Case:  RBI and India's NPAs: Since 1990s, public banks have accumulated huge NPAs and these have been capital  funded by the Central Government whenever there is capital erosion. There have been Master Circular after Master Circular issued by the RBI. Supervision is with the regulator.

There have been speeches after speeches on credit risk  yet the RBI has been reluctant to move beyond directions with some banks like, say the  United Bank of India. Since 1980s this bank has been under the radar  of the supervisors for inefficiencies. It added on Rs. 80073 million  to its NPA kitty in 2014 and had a reduction of Rs.38531 million in 2014. Overall the gross NPA figures rose to Rs.71180 million. (RBI's figures) Regulatory assessment of capital erosion figures of such banks would be best known to the RBI.  It is the public's money that is being used to infuse capital at every fall of these banks. Yet the regulator seems hesitant to take severest and exemplary action. 

There has to be some accountability ; at least greater transparency at supervisory and regulatory failures.  Or is it that because of political appointments, regulators meekly follow hollow politics? Or is it that the regulators are afraid? Or is it that they are indulging in 'lazy regulatory action'? (borrowing from Mr. Mody's phrase of 'lazy banking'.