'Very nasty': Supreme Court raps Registry over failure to issue notice to ED Director

The Supreme Court on Monday came down heavily on its Registry for failing to issue notice in a matter to the Director of the Enforcement Directorate (ED) despite orders to do so. [Ayushi Mittal v. State of Rajasthan]

A Bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi expressed strong displeasure.

“Very nasty Registry. Each one sitting here considers themselves as super Chief Justice of India,” remarked CJI Kant.

The Court noted that despite its earlier order, notice had not been issued to the ED Director, even as the Registry maintained that no such direction existed.

“Notice has not been issued to ED Director stating no such order was passed,” noted the Court.

Terming this unacceptable, the Court directed a fact-finding inquiry by the Registrar (Judicial) to ascertain how its March 2026 order was interpreted. Directing a probe into the lapse, CJI Kant ordered,

“Let a fact finding inquiry be undertaken by registrar judicial as to how our March 2026 does not mean notice to the ED.”

It further ordered that notice be served to the ED in the concerned case.

The case pertains to allegations against the petitioner, her husband and their company that they duped investors to the tune of more than ₹37,000 crore. Before the Court, they claimed that a substantial portion of that amount was returned to the investors, while a few hundred crores remain in bank accounts frozen by the ED.

The Court said that it would consider the petitioner's bail plea only after she files an affidavit detailing the immovable properties owned by her, her family members and directors and staff of the company.

In its order passed on March 23, the Court said,

"On an oral prayer made by learned State counsel, the Directorate of Enforcement, through its Director, shall be made a party respondent. The cause title shall be amended accordingly. It is clarified that this is done only to determine whether all immovable and movable assets of the petitioner, her family and relatives, and close relatives have been attached or not."

The Court’s sharp remarks come against the backdrop of recent concerns flagged by CJI Kant over irregularities in the functioning of the Supreme Court Registry.

Earlier this year, CJI Kant had taken exception to a petition being listed before a bench despite a similar plea having already been dismissed by a three-judge bench.

Terming the development “shocking”, the CJI had then indicated that a deeper administrative probe would be undertaken into the Registry’s functioning, questioning officials who “think they are permanent”.

The incident had prompted the Court to signal the need for systemic reforms to address lapses in case listing and procedural compliance.

[Read Live Coverage]