New Delhi: The Supreme Court of India on Monday stated it would not be fair to direct the arrest of any specific individual while monitoring the ongoing multi-crore banking fraud investigation involving the Anil Dhirubhai Ambani Group (ADAG) and its subsidiary firms. A bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi, and Justice V Mohna noted that the specific role of any individual will naturally emerge from the chargesheets themselves. The apex court recorded the latest status report submitted by the central investigative agencies and directed them to place a fresh updated report on record before the next date of hearing.
The judicial observations came during the hearing of a public interest litigation filed by former bureaucrat EAS Sarma, who alleged systematic public fund diversion, financial statement fabrication, and institutional complicity within the corporate group. Advocating for the petitioner, lawyer Prashant Bhushan contended that despite investigative agencies promising to file reports by June, they had failed to take direct enforcement action against corporate chairman Anil Ambani. Citing past regulatory findings from the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) and a 2025 agency chargesheet that characterized Ambani as the central figure or kingpin of the financial operations, Bhushan alleged that the central bureaus had largely targeted lower-level officers while shielding top executives.
Refuting the allegations, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing both the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and the Enforcement Directorate (ED), clarified that senior executives, including a managing director of the corporate group, had already been placed under arrest. Out of the nine initial complaints, seven active FIRs involving an aggregate public exchequer loss of Rs 27,337 crore are under intense scrutiny. Mehta informed the bench that the CBI has already finalized and filed three distinct chargesheets, while the ED has filed four corresponding prosecution complaints under money laundering laws, with the remaining four cases undergoing active investigation. Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for Ambani, strongly objected to the petitioner’s submissions, arguing that using public interest litigation to aggressively pursue the arrest of a specific individual is highly improper and prejudicial, especially before a trial court takes formal cognizance of the filed chargesheets.
