'Why Anil Ambani Not Arrested?' Asks Petitioner ; 'Can't Respond Why X Or Y Not Arrested', Says ED

During the hearing of a plea seeking investigation into an alleged fraud by Anil Dhirubhai Ambani Group of companies, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta today told the Supreme Court that he cannot respond to the petitioner's question as to why Ambani has not been arrested.

"I will not be able to respond why some X is not arrested or Y is not arrested...it's not..." the SG said, while informing that 2 fresh FIRs have been registered by the agencies on discovery of some more material.

The remark came in response to a contention by Advocate Prashant Bhushan, for petitioner, that the Enforcement Directorate has arrested a few subordinate employees in connection with the case, but not Anil Ambani, who was "identified as the kingpin of the fraud" by SEBI in its report.

A bench of CJI Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi heard the matter and posted it to May 8, when it is set to consider the fresh status reports filed by ED and CBI regarding the investigation.

It expressed that it would like to consider the agencies' reports before issuing further directions.

During the hearing, the bench was also told that the investigation, which was proposed on the last date to be completed within 4 weeks, could not be completed as the agencies found some more material and two fresh FIRs had to be registered.

To recap, the present 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 this backdrop, counsel for a creditor, who has filed an application, today cited a specific case where collusive IBC proceedings have apparently taken place. He prayed that the case cited be investigated by the CBI and ED.

"Completely solvent company collecting toll of 8.5 crores per month. An IBC petition is filed. It's taken under CIRP and then some SRA comes and takes it under substantial cut, where debt of some 584 crores is paid off by 85 crores. That plan is filed, everyone agrees, it is approved. All the creditors then suffer and the company comes out whitewashed", he said.

While Justice Bagchi pointed out that the applicant-creditor has the option of challenging the acceptance of the resolution plan, CJI Kant remarked that in a bonafide public interest litigation the Court cannot resolve such inter-se disputes.

When the counsel sought permission to place the case before the investigating agencies, the bench opined that he did not require such permission. "If there is some information or material which has direct bearing on the investigation of the issues you are examining, that also should be taken into consideration", CJI told SG Mehta.

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