Anil Ambani Files Affidavit In Supreme Court, Undertakes Not To Leave India & To Cooperate With ED-CBI Probe

Industrialist Anil Ambani has filed an affidavit before the Supreme Court undertaking that he will not leave India without prior permission of the Court and will fully cooperate with the ongoing investigation by the Directorate of Enforcement and the Central Bureau of Investigation in connection with the Anil Dhirubai Ambani Group companies.

The affidavit has been filed in response to the writ petition filed by EAS Sarma seeking a Court-monitored investigation into the alleged loan fraud of over Rs 40,000 crores by ADAG companies.

In his affidavit, Ambani adopted the undertaking given on his behalf by Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi to the Court on February 4.

He further stated that he has not left India since July 2025, that is, since the inception of the present investigations. He stated that he presently has no plan or intention to travel outside India. In the event any requirement of foreign travel arises, he undertook to seek prior leave and permission of the Supreme Court before undertaking such travel.

Ambani also stated that he has been fully cooperating with the investigating agencies and continues to extend complete cooperation. He disclosed that he has been summoned by the Enforcement Directorate to appear on February 26, 2026, and undertook to appear and join the investigation on the said date.

On February 4, a bench led by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, after recording displeasure with the delay by the CBI and ED, directed them to investigate the matter in a time-bound manner. The ED was directed to form a Special Investigation Team, and CBI was asked to file separate FIRs with respect to the complaints from each bank, instead of proceeding under the single FIR lodged on the complaint of the SBI. The bench also directed to investigate the angle of connivance by bank officials, without waiting for sanction under Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

What Is The Plea About?

The petitioner contends that the present investigation being conducted by the CBI and Enforcement Directorate is narrow, incomplete, and deliberately excludes the role of bank officials and public servants, despite detailed material indicating their complicity. He submits that judicial supervision is essential to ensure a coordinated, transparent and comprehensive probe covering all offences revealed in multiple forensic audit reports, technical analyses and investigative publications.

According to the petition, Reliance Communications and its group companies cumulatively received Rs. 31,580 crore in loans between 2013 and 2017 from a consortium led by State Bank of India. A forensic audit commissioned by SBI and submitted in October 2020 reportedly uncovered diversion of thousands of crores through related parties, shell firms, circular transactions and sham asset purchases. However, despite these findings, SBI lodged a formal complaint only in August 2025, nearly five years later, a delay the petitioner says cannot be explained without examining whether bank officials acted to shield the borrower group.

The CBI thereafter registered an FIR alleging conspiracy, cheating and criminal breach of trust, causing an alleged wrongful loss of Rs. 2,929 crore. The petition argues that the FIR covers only a fraction of the alleged misconduct and ignores grave offences such as diversion through non-existent bank accounts, evergreening of loans, fictitious entries, and the use of conduit entities like Netizen Engineering Pvt. Ltd. and Kunj Bihari Developers Pvt. Ltd., which were found to be untraceable at their registered addresses.

Multiple materials placed before the Court, including forensic audits of Reliance Communications, Reliance Infratel, Reliance Telecom, Reliance Capital and related companies, reportedly reveal a pattern of large-scale siphoning of public funds, layering of transactions and violations of statutory and regulatory frameworks such as the Companies Act, FEMA, SEBI norms and RBI directions.

The petition stresses that bank officials involved in sanctioning, monitoring and overlooking these transactions are “public servants” for the purpose of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Their conduct, it argues, forms an integral part of the alleged conspiracy and must be investigated. Excluding them from scrutiny, it says, renders the ongoing probe constitutionally deficient and violative of Articles 14 and 21.

The petitioner is represented by Advoctes Prashant Bhushan and Pranav Sachdeva.

Case : EAS Sarma v. Union of India and others |W.P.(C) No. 1217/2025