'Can't Direct Anyone's Arrest' : Supreme Court On Pleas Against Anil Ambani In ADAG Loan Fraud Case

In response to a submission that the investigating agencies have arrested only 'lowly officers' in connection with the Anil Dhirubhai Ambani Group loan fraud case, the Supreme Court today said that it would not be fair for the Court to direct anyone's arrest.

The Court's comment was a response to a submission by Advocate Prashant Bhushan, for the petitioner, that the CBI and ED have arrested only small-level officers, and not Anil Ambani, who has been identified by SEBI as the 'kingpin' in one of its reports.

A bench of CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana was dealing with a PIL filed by EAS Sarma seeking investigation into the alleged loan fraud of over Rs 40,000 crores by companies of the ADAG.

On the last date, while Bhushan questioned Ambani's non-arrest despite serious allegations in the probe agencies' findings, Ambani's counsel Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal commented that maybe he (Ambani) was cheated. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, on the other hand, informed that multiple investigations by the ED and CBI were underway. The CJI on his part said that for the time being, the Court was only planning to monitor the investigation.

During today's hearing, Bhushan submitted that though the agencies had claimed that 3 chargesheets would be filed by June, no status report had been placed on record. SG Mehta, in response, told the Court that the status report was ready, as per which 3 chargesheets (by CBI) and 4 prosecution complaints (by ED) had been filed, while investigation was pending in rest of the cases.

Countering the petitioner's claim that only 'lowly officers' had been arrested, the SG further informed that the Group's Managing Director had also been placed under arrest.

Hearing him, Bhushan proposed that the chargesheets be filed before the Supreme Court, so the petitioner may ascertain the role attributed to Anil Ambani, if any. "If the facts are these, that the SEBI says he was the kingpin, he was the Chairman of the company, it was at his directions that everything was happening...how do I come to know whether they have investigated it in the correct manner or not?" the counsel asked.

At this point, the CJI said that the Court was not recording anything in its order but the petitioner may go through the chargesheets filed by CBI only to ascertain Ambani's role.

Taking objection however, Sibal contended that the practice was hitherto unknown to the Court. "That comment itself will cause prejudice to us. Once chargesheet is filed, cognizance is yet to be taken. This is not the procedure this court has ever followed", said Sibal.

"We are also over conscious that nothing should come from our side which can prejudice the parties", replied the CJI.

Ultimately, the Court refrained from recording anything to the effect in its order. Taking the latest status report on record, it re-listed the matter.

Background

The plea seeks an investigation into the alleged loan fraud of over Rs 40,000 crores by Anil Dhirubhai Ambani Group (ADAG) companies. Earlier, deprecating the "unexplained delay" on the part of agencies in investigating the matter, the Court had asked the ED and CBI to expeditiously probe the matter.

In March, the agencies sought 4 weeks' time for completion of the investigation. The Court on its part noted from a report of the ED that debts worth Rs 2983 crores of certain companies of the Anil Ambani Group were settled in insolvency proceedings for merely Rs 26 crores. All these acquisitions were facilitated by 8 Non-Banking Finance Companies through "Project Help", it observed.

Prior to that, CJI Kant had also raised concern over the increasing instances of misuse of the IBC process by bankrupt companies. The CJI flagged the issue of companies auctioning their assets to family members/ friends at undervalued rates.

In April, when the petitioner had raised a query as to why Ambani, the "kingpin", had not been arrested, SG Mehta responded that he could not answer as to why some X or Y had not been arrested.

Case Title: EAS Sarma v. Union of India and Others, W.P.(C) No. 1217/2025