New Delhi: The Supreme Court Wednesday echoed its concerns over delayed investigation into the alleged bank fraud by the Reliance Anil Ambani Group and asked the Enforcement Directorate (ED) to constitute an SIT of senior officers to probe the matter.
A bench presided by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant told solicitor general Tushar Mehta that it expected both the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and Enforcement Directorate (ED) to be fair, independent and very swift.
The remarks came as the bench was hearing a public interest litigation (PIL) filed by former bureaucrat E. A. S. Sarma, seeking a probe into the alleged collusion between bank authorities and Anil Ambani’s Reliance group to release bank loans in favour of the latter, despite default.
The court made the observation even as Anil Ambani’s lawyer offered to settle by repaying the loans.
According to PTI, the petitioner claims that over ₹1.50 trillion of debt was written off and funds were siphoned off through shell companies, calling it the country’s largest bank loan fraud.
The petitioner said the fraud began in 2007-08, but the FIR was filed in 2025. He alleged that probe agencies have not properly examined the role of banks and their officials in the alleged fraud.
The plea said that between 2013 and 2017, companies including RCOM, Reliance Infratel and Reliance Telecom borrowed from banks led by SBI. As per ED, the default amount is close to Rs 78,000 crore.
Asking the ED and CBI to investigate the conduct of bank authorities, the bench frowned upon CBI’s stand that it was awaiting sanction under section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act (PCA) to start its probe.
The bench said the agency’s approach in this regard was “totally misconceived”. Section 17A of PCA mandates prior sanction from competent authorities for prosecuting public servants.
The bench directed that “regardless of any such provision, the CBI must look into the nexus/collusion/connivance/conspiracy if any, and for that purpose, take all measures to take investigation to its logical conclusion.”
On Sarma’s lawyer, Prashant Bhushan’s apprehension that Anil Ambani might flee the country, the court recorded Mehta’s assurance that “all preventive, remedial action will be taken to ensure that no impediment is caused in the ongoing investigation.”
Ambani’s lawyer, senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi made an assurance that his client “will not leave the country without the permission of this court”.
To Rohatgi’s proposal to repay, Mehta said compounding of the offence may not be possible even if Ambani pays back, as forensic audit indicated fraud.
Rohati said he was not averse to the SIT. “They say it’s siphoning, I say it’s not, but whatever it is, there could be business losses, etc. Through the good offices of the court and government, they can form a committee of finance people like SBI, RBI, etc, and let’s have a look at it as to what is the amount due and if this gentleman or his companies can pay in some staggered way, that is one way to look at it rather than going on for prosecutions. I am stating so on instructions,” the senior lawyer said.
However, the solicitor informed the bench about the forensic audit conducted so far, which, he said, revealed that the companies under scanner had siphoned the funds.
At this, Justice Joymalya Bagchi, one of the three judges present on the bench, took serious exception to CBI taking refuge of section 17A of PCA for not registering a regular case (RC).
“If the forensic auditor says that there was a breach not of loan terms but of collusion, then what is the question of stopping the registration of RCs in view of taking sanction,” he said, asking the solicitor to examine CBI’s stand.
Bhushan pointed out that the consortium of banks lodged a complaint with the CBI only in 2025, even as an audit report by the Bank of Baroda came in 2025. This report, he added, explained the manner in which funds were siphoned off. He also told the bench that the first arrest in the case was made two days before.
Mehta was also questioned on why CBI had registered just one FIR, whereas the transactions constitute independent offences.
Rohatgi then beseeched the court to consider his request to allow Ambani to pay back. He said “nobody was running away” and that assets worth Rs 12,000 crore have been attached and over 100 summons have been issued to various persons.
The senior counsel denied that there was intention to siphon the public funds. “We have done business for 40 years,” he said.
The bench told Mehta that it would like him to submit a status report every month. This direction was given in view of Bhushan’s submissions that ED has admitted in its affidavit that forged bank guarantees were given by the defaulting companies of the Anil Ambani group.
“In four weeks, they must submit the report and let’s see how they take the investigation to what logical conclusion,” said the court, as it issued directions to the CBI and ED on this account.
(Edited by Viny Mishra)
Also read: ‘Will learn a lot from u’—excerpts from Anil Ambani & Jeffrey Epstein chats featuring Modi, Trump