Supreme Court Flags Unexplained Delay, Lapses by CBI-ED in ₹40,000-Crore Loan Fraud Probe Into Anil Ambani Group Companies

The Supreme Court on Wednesday flagged serious procedural lapses in the investigation into alleged bank loan frauds of over ₹40,000 crore linked to companies of Anil Dhirubhai Ambani Group, questioning why the Central Bureau of Investigation registered only a single FIR despite complaints from multiple banks.

A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul Pancholi, noted that while one FIR had been registered in 2025 on the basis of a complaint from the State Bank of India, subsequent complaints from other banks and financial institutions were being investigated by enlarging the scope of the first FIR.

The Court commented that the “said approach adopted by the CBI does not seem to be in conformity with the procedural law,” as each complaint constitutes a separate transaction warranting a separate FIR.

The Court also criticised what it described as the “unexplained delay” on the part of the Enforcement Directorate in investigating the alleged fraud and directed the Central Bureau of Investigation to examine the possibility of collusion on the part of bank officers involved in sanctioning and monitoring the loans.

“Both ED and CBI have already taken time, and we therefore expect that both agencies will act promptly,” the Court observed. It further said that “the ED is well advised to constitute a Special Investigation Team comprising senior officers and take all lawful measures to take the ongoing investigation to a logical conclusion.”

The Bench was hearing a public interest litigation filed by E. A. S. Sarma, seeking a court-monitored investigation into the alleged diversion and siphoning of public funds by ADAG companies.

At the outset, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta informed the Court that funds alleged to be siphoned off through bank loan frauds by ADAG companies were worth around Rs 40,000 crore. He also told the Court that the ED and the CBI had filed separate status reports.

When the SG said the FIR was registered on the basis of a complaint by SBI, the CJI asked why separate FIRs were not registered for complaints received from other banks.

“The first FIR came from the State Bank of India. Thereafter, other banks also informed us about alleged siphoning; they are also part of the same FIR now,” Mehta said. The CJI responded that complaints from other banks constituted separate transactions, and hence separate FIRs could be registered. The SG said this aspect would be examined.

Appearing for the petitioner, Advocate Prashant Bhushan submitted that the first report flagging misappropriation of funds came from the Bank of Baroda in 2020, but the FIR was registered only in 2025 after SBI lodged its complaint. Bhushan also pointed out that the first arrest in the case took place only two days earlier, after the Supreme Court issued notice in the PIL. The ED had arrested former Reliance Communications director Punit Garg last week.

Bhushan urged the Court to restrain Anil Ambani from leaving the country, citing past instances of defaulters fleeing India. The SG informed the Court that Look Out Circulars had already been issued and welcomed the Court passing any prohibitory order.

At this juncture, Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for Ambani, gave an undertaking that he would not leave the country without prior permission of the court. The SG remarked that Rohatgi had earlier given a similar undertaking before the Delhi High Court in another matter, despite which the individual concerned had fled the country. “But he came back and paid the amounts to the government,” Rohatgi replied.

The Court recorded the undertaking as well as the statement of the SG that all preventive and remedial action would be taken to ensure no impediment was caused to the investigation.

Rohatgi also suggested that instead of prosecution, the government could form a committee to determine the actual dues. “I have a proposal to make,,in the sense, since the govt is here, if to the good offices of the Court, they can form a committee and let's have a look at it, what amount is due, that is one way to look at it, instead of going for prosecution, these are my instructions,” he submitted.

Senior Advocate Shyam Divan, appearing for the ADAG companies, submitted that Reliance Power Limited and Reliance Infrastructure Limited had repaid around Rs 20,000 crore. “These companies are in the nature of paying back. We are trying to ensure that the payments are being made. There is no question of siphoning,” Divan said.

The SG responded that it would have to be examined whether some companies had repaid dues by taking money from loans availed by other group entities.

Bhushan countered by stating that Reliance Communications Limited, with dues of about Rs 47,000 crore, was sold to a company linked to Ambani's brother for about Rs 430 crore. At this point, the CJI observed that the “IBC is being misused like anything.”

In its affidavit, the ED stated that it had registered three Enforcement Case Information Reports under the PMLA in relation to Reliance Commercial Finance Limited and Reliance Home Finance Limited, Reliance Communications Limited and Reliance Power Limited, apart from three cases under FEMA.