Supreme Court seeks status report from CBI, ED on probe into RCom group

The Supreme Court on Friday asked the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and the Enforcement Directorate (ED) to update the court on the steps taken so far in probes linked to allegations of large-scale bank fraud involving Reliance Communications, its group companies, and industrialist Anil Ambani.

 

The direction came from a Bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi while hearing a petition filed by former Union Secretary EAS Sarma, who has sought judicial supervision of the investigations. Appearing for Sarma, advocate Prashant Bhushan submitted that the alleged financial irregularities in the case were far more extensive and intricate than those examined in earlier corporate fraud matters.

 

He argued that despite massive loan write-offs running into over Rs 1.5 lakh crore, investigative agencies had moved slowly and incompletely. Bhushan pointed out that although Bank of Baroda detected irregularities as early as 2020 through an audit, a criminal case was registered only in June 2025. He also flagged that the FIR does not name any public servants and fails to capture the full scope of the alleged misconduct.

 

Responding for the Centre, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta said a criminal case was already on record and the CBI was pursuing the matter. Bhushan, however, maintained that the investigation lacked depth and pressed for accountability from both the CBI and the ED through formal status reports.

 

Accepting the request, the court directed the two agencies to file reports detailing the progress of their investigations. It said that if the probes are still under way, the initial reports may be submitted in sealed cover, with further consideration to follow after 10 days. The Bench also granted additional time to Anil Ambani and his group entities to enter an appearance in the case, directing the registry to issue fresh notices to them in the interest of justice.

 

According to the petition, Reliance Communications and its subsidiaries, Reliance Infratel and Reliance Telecom, availed loans of about Rs 31,000 crore between 2013 and 2017 from a banking consortium led by the State Bank of India (SBI). A forensic audit commissioned by SBI is said to have uncovered large-scale diversion of funds, including repayment of unrelated liabilities, transfers to connected parties, investments in mutual funds, fixed deposits that were quickly liquidated, and complex circular transactions allegedly used to evergreen loans.

 

The plea contends that the FIR registered by the CBI in August 2025, along with parallel ED proceedings, addresses only a limited portion of the alleged wrongdoing. It also alleges that the role of bank officials and regulators has not been examined, despite multiple forensic and independent reports indicating systemic lapses.

 

A further concern raised is the nearly five-year gap between SBI receiving the forensic audit report in October 2020 and lodging its complaint in August 2025, which the petitioner says raises a prima facie inference of institutional complicity. The petition also points to possible violations of foreign exchange and money laundering laws, citing allegations of offshore fund diversion and cross-border transactions.

 

Arguing that the existing investigations do not grapple with these core issues, the petitioner has sought a court-monitored probe encompassing all forensic findings, related insolvency proceedings and material already in the public domain, asserting that only judicial oversight can ensure a comprehensive investigation into a case involving substantial public funds.

 

Delhi HC flags jurisdiction in ED attachment challenge

 

Meanwhile, the Delhi High Court on Friday indicated that it may lack jurisdiction to hear pleas by Reliance Realty and Campion Properties, both Anil Ambani group firms, challenging the Enforcement Directorate’s attachment of their properties in a money laundering case.

 

Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav observed that since the companies are Mumbai-based, the proceedings may have to be pursued there, asking, “Why should we entertain here?”

 

Senior advocate Siddharth Aggarwal, appearing for the companies, argued that the Delhi High Court was competent to hear the matter, while ED counsel Zoheb Hossain and Vivek Gurnani submitted that the adjudicating authority under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) was already seized of the case. The court asked the petitioners to file brief notes on maintainability and listed the matter for January 30.