The Supreme Court on Friday directed the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and the Enforcement Directorate (ED) to file status reports on the progress of their investigation into a case involving allegations of large-scale bank fraud by Reliance Communications (RCOM), its group entities and Anil Ambani [EAS Sarma v. Union of India].
A Bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi passed the order on a plea filed by former Secretary to the Government of India, EAS Sarma, who has sought a court-monitored investigation in the matter.
Representing Sarma, Advocate Prashant Bhushan today argued that the level of corporate fraud involved in this case was greater and more complex than the fraud found in the India Bulls case.
Solicitor General of India (SG) Tushar Mehta replied that he was not opposing this submission, but pointed out that a criminal case has already been registered in the matter and is being probed by the CBI.
Bhushan, however, argued that the CBI's first information report (FIR) is lacking in some respects. He urged the Court to seek a status report of the investigation being conducted in the matter by the CBI as well as the ED.
"More than 1.5 lakh crores of debts have been written off. The web of transactions is so fraudulent. The (Bank of Baroda) BOB and the CBI have registered an FIR in June 2025 based on an audit report the BOB had received in 2020. Even in the FIR, they have not named any public servant. The banks from whom loans were taken and siphoned out, this was detected by BOB in early 2020 itself! The first thing that is needed is for the CBI and ED is to file their status report saying what have they done until now," he said.
Accordingly, the Court has now called for such status reports.
"Since respondents 1-3 (Union of India, CBI, ED) have been served and entered appearance through SG, the CBI and ED are directed to file status reports with respect to the ongoing investigations. If investigation is not complete, such status reports may be filed initially before us in a sealed cover. Post it after 10 days," the Court ordered.
The Court also gave Anil Ambani himself to respond to the petition at hand.
"Respondent No. 4 and 5 (Anil Ambani Group and Anil Ambani), who are duly served, have not entered appearance. In the interest of justice, and as a last opportunity, they are permitted to enter appearance. Registry to issue fresh notice to Respondent 4 and 5," the Court ordered.
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.”
Among other concerns, the plea says that the case involves allegations of offshore fund diversion and complex cross-border transactions, which also point to possible violations of the Foreign Exchange Management Act and the Prevention of Money Laundering Act.
Contending that the present CBI and ED investigations fail to address such core issues, the petitioner sought a court–monitored investigation covering all forensic audit findings, linked corporate insolvency proceedings and publicly available investigative material.
The petition states that only judicial oversight can ensure that a matter involving such extensive public money exposure is thoroughly investigated.
[Live Coverage]