Supreme Court of India deferred ADAG banking fraud PIL to May 8, stressing fair probe. Bench of Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi heard plea against Anil Ambani.
The Supreme Court deferred the hearing of a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) alleging large-scale banking fraud involving companies linked to the Anil Dhirubhai Ambani Group (ADAG) to May 8. While considering the matter, the Court emphasised the necessity of a “fair, dispassionate, transparent, and time-bound” investigation into allegations that the total financial irregularities across entities could amount to nearly Rs 73,000 crore.
The matter is being heard by a Bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi on a PIL filed by former bureaucrat E. A. S. Sarma. The petition seeks a court-monitored probe into alleged loan defaults, diversion of public funds, and financial irregularities involving ADAG companies associated with industrialist Anil Ambani. It highlights concerns about systemic lapses in banking oversight and the handling of large corporate loans by public sector banks.
ALSO READ: Defamatory Case: Anil Ambani Withdraws Suit Against Cobrapost & Economic Times
According to the plea, between 2013 and 2017, several ADAG entities including Reliance Communications (RCOM), Reliance Infratel, and Reliance Telecom borrowed approximately Rs 31,580 crore from a consortium of lenders led by the State Bank of India. The petitioner alleges that these funds were diverted and that financial records may have been manipulated over several years, with some irregularities traced back to 2007–08. The FIR in the matter, however, was reportedly registered only in 2025.
At the outset of the hearing, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and the Enforcement Directorate (ED), informed the Court that updated status reports had been filed in compliance with earlier directions. Advocate Prashant Bhushan, representing the petitioner, raised concerns over the pace of the investigation,
He submitted,
“The CBI and the ED have filed status reports. The kingpin has not been arrested. Anil Ambani was identified as the kingpin. But nothing has been done yet.”
Responding to this, the Solicitor General stated,
“I cannot respond as to why ‘X’ or ‘Y’ is not arrested. We have filed our status reports.”
The exchange reflected the ongoing debate over the adequacy and progress of the investigation by central agencies.
Court’s Observations and Directions
Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for Anil Ambani, sought time to present detailed submissions, stating that he possessed information “that has not been apprised to any court so far.” The Court assured that all parties would be heard before any conclusions are reached and reiterated its focus on ensuring “transparency and impartiality” in the probe.
The Bench also took note of the scale of alleged irregularities, including reports of fraud estimated at Rs 73,000 crore, ED attachments worth approximately Rs 15,000 crore, and allegations of discrepancies in loan settlements, as well as forged guarantees leading to losses exceeding Rs 105 crore. Stressing accountability, the Court observed, “The investigating agencies must join hands and find out the issue.”
Further emphasising the need for a robust inquiry, the Bench stated,
“We impress upon the CBI and the ED that the probe be completed most dispassionately and independently so that it is taken to a logical conclusion in a time-bound manner.”
The Solicitor General assured the Court that “no stone shall be left unturned to unearth the truth.”
The Court also noted that a Special Investigation Team (SIT) has been constituted to examine the matter. As proceedings continue, the case is expected to address critical questions regarding corporate accountability, banking regulation, and the role of investigative agencies in handling high-value financial frauds.
Meanwhile, Anil Ambani has previously informed the Court that he will not leave the country without prior permission, indicating ongoing judicial oversight in the matter.
The next hearing on May 8 is likely to be crucial in determining the direction and scope of the investigation.
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE