The Supreme Court (SC) on Wednesday directed the enforcement directorate (ED) to constitute a special investigation team (SIT) dedicated to investigating allegations of large-scale bank fraud by Reliance Communications (RCOM), its group entities and Anil Ambani (EAS Sarma vs Union of India).
A Bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi passed the order.
"ED is well advised to constitute a SIT comprising senior officers and take all the measures so that the ongoing probe is taken to a logical conclusion," the Court said.
Notably, the Court has also recorded an undertaking given by Anil Ambani's lawyers that he will not leave the country. This was after apprehensions were raised that Ambani could flee India before the probe against him is completed.
"Why will he (flee)? He is here. He will not leave without permission of this court," Ambani's counsel, Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi assured the Court today.
"Mr. Rohatgi in Delhi High Court had given an assurance that a person will not flee.. but he did," countered Solicitor General (SG) Tushar Mehta.
"(He) came back and paid ₹5000 crores," Rohatgi replied.
"SG has assured that all preventive action will be taken to not hinder the probe. Mr Rohatgi assured that his client will not leave the country without leave of this court," the Court proceeded to record in its order.
Among other directions, the Court today has also directed the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to ensure that any possible collusion by bank officials in the alleged fraud is investigated.
"It is imperative for CBI to probe the conduct of bank officials to check if funds were released with the collusion of bank officers. We direct that ... the CBI must look into the nexus, collusion, conspiracy, if any, and for that purpose, all lawful measures to take the investigation to its logical end is adopted," the Court's order stated.
The Bench also took critical note of arguments that both agencies have been slow in their investigation, and added that it expected the CBI and the ED to ensure a fair probe.
"It has been contended that there has been an unexplained delay on part of ED ... Both agencies have taken their own time to take action and any therefore we expect both agencies to act impartially and dispassionate manner. Let status report be filed by ED and CBI in four weeks," the Court ordered.
During the hearing, the Court had orally remarked that it expected the CBI and the ED to periodically inform it about the progress of their investigation in the matter.
"Mr SG (Solicitor General Tushar Mehta), we expect your agency acts impartially. We need status reports every month. Such a huge amount has been siphoned. Submit the final status report also after three months. The amount is ₹1,78,000 crores," the Court said.
As the hearing progressed, the Court added,
"We are hopeful that CBI and ED will do its job."
The Court was hearing a plea filed by former Secretary to the Government of India, EAS Sarma, who has sought a court-monitored investigation into
Sarma has argued that the ongoing investigation in the matter by the CBI and ED is not adequate.
Representing Sarma today, Advocate Prashant Bhushan argued,
"FIR was registered in 2025. First arrest was affected yesterday. This is the largest corporate fraud."
Representing Anil Ambani, Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi opposed the claim that this case involved funds being siphoned off. He also said that he is not opposing a Special Investigation Team (SIT) probe.
"I am not opposing SIT. I say it is not siphoning. If through this court and govt, a committee is formed of officers of finance etc...then there can be ways to look at it instead of prosecution," he suggested.
Senior Advocate Shyam Divan, representing the Anil Dhirubhai Ambani Group of companies, also made a similar argument, denying the allegations of fund siphoning.
"The impression that public fund has been siphoned off is not correct," he said.
SG Tushar Mehta disagreed with such submissions.
"Banks conducted a forensic audit by an outside auditor and they said it is siphoning," he said.
"If there is an intention to siphon public funds, then SG is correct and it cant be said that prosecution cannot happen," CJI Kant pointed out.
"Even bank officials are under investigation.. and if they have colluded etc they will be probed," SG Mehta added.
"People do go bankrupt. It is not a new thing," Rohatgi countered.
"The main person, the kingpin, has not been arrested so far," Bhushan maintained.
SG Mehta went on to inform the Court that the government is also examining the insolvency side of the matter.
"Government of India is also seriously considering this issue in IBC," he said.
"Unfortunately the conduct of resolution professional is also not desirable," the Bench noted, in response.
In the last hearing of the matter, the Court had directed the CBI and ED to file status reports on the progress of their investigation into the matter.
According to the
petition before the Court, RCOM and its subsidiaries - Reliance Infratel and Reliance Telecom - received loans amounting to ₹31,580 crore between 2013 and 2017 from a consortium of banks led by State Bank of India (SBI).
The plea claims that a forensic audit commissioned by SBI revealed substantial diversion of funds, including thousands of crores used to repay unrelated loans, transfers to related parties, investments in mutual funds and fixed deposits that were immediately liquidated, and complex circular routing of money to disguise evergreening of loans.
The plea goes on to assert that the FIR registered by the CBI on August 21, 2025, and the connected ED proceedings cover only a fraction of the alleged wrongdoing. The agencies are not investigating the roles of bank officials and regulators despite detailed forensic audits and independent reports pointing to widespread fraud, it states.
Another central grievance raised in the petition is the nearly five-year delay by SBI in acting upon the forensic audit report it received in October 2020. The bank filed its complaint only in August 2025, which the petitioner claims gives rise to a prima facie inference of “institutional complicity.”
The petition states that only judicial oversight can ensure that a matter involving such extensive public money exposure is thoroughly investigated.
Punit Garg is singing like a Canary since Saturday morning, and more actions can be expected by next Friday, when ED will seek an extension of his remand at Rouse court.. Another accomplice of Garg involved in selling Manhattan Apartment is cooperating with the agency, though her statements don't directly implicate Anil Ambani, with Garg and Sateesh Seth being the layers guarding the master.
After SC hearing today, agencies will have to look into a clutch of retired PSU bankers who were involved with the group as Independent Directors, consultants or employees; including a former Chairman of a PSU bank