Supreme Court Seeks CBI, ED Status Reports On Alleged Bank Frauds Linked To Anil Ambani Group

The Supreme Court on Friday sought status reports from the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and the Directorate of Enforcement (ED) on their ongoing probes into alleged bank frauds involving Anil Dhirubhai Ambani Group companies and their promoter, Anil Ambani.

The reports are to be submitted in a sealed cover.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi was hearing a public interest litigation filed by former Union government secretary E.A.S. Sarma.

Appearing for the petitioner, Advocate Prashant Bhushan submitted that debts exceeding Rs 1.50 lakh crore owed by the group's companies had been written off and that funds were allegedly siphoned through multiple shell entities. He described the matter as the "largest bank loan fraud" in the country.

Bhushan pointed out that neither Anil Ambani nor the group companies had entered an appearance despite notices issued on November 18 last year. “This was widely reported in the media. It's not that they do not know. They are watching the proceedings,” he said.

The bench recorded that the respondents had not appeared despite service of notice but, in the interest of justice, granted them a final opportunity. A fresh notice was directed to be issued, with the Registrar General of the Bombay High Court asked to ensure service.

Bhushan also urged the Court to call for status reports from the CBI and ED, contending that no public servant had been named as an accused so far.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Union, said he was not opposing the request. He informed the bench that the FIR was registered on the basis of a forensic audit conducted by the State Bank of India. “They did find siphoning of funds for other purposes. Based on that, SBI filed an FIR with the CBI,” he submitted.

According to the petition, Reliance Communications and its group companies received loans totalling Rs 31,580 crore between 2013 and 2017 from a consortium led by SBI. A forensic audit submitted in October 2020 allegedly found diversion of large sums through related parties, shell firms, circular transactions, and sham asset purchases. However, SBI lodged a formal complaint only in August 2025, a delay the petitioner says warrants scrutiny of the role of bank officials.

The CBI thereafter registered an FIR alleging conspiracy, cheating, and criminal breach of trust involving an alleged loss of Rs 2,929 crore. The petition argues that the FIR captures only a limited part of the alleged misconduct and does not address other issues flagged in forensic audits, including evergreening of loans, fictitious entries, and transactions routed through entities such as Netizen Engineering Pvt. Ltd. and Kunj Bihari Developers Pvt. Ltd., which were reportedly untraceable at their registered addresses.

The petition relies on multiple forensic audits of group companies, including Reliance Communications, Reliance Infratel, Reliance Telecom and Reliance Capital, which allegedly indicate patterns of fund diversion, layered transactions, and violations of statutory and regulatory frameworks, including the Companies Act, FEMA, SEBI regulations, and RBI norms.

It contends that bank officials involved in sanctioning and monitoring the loans qualify as “public servants” under the Prevention of Corruption Act and that excluding them from investigation renders the probe incomplete and constitutionally infirm.

Reference is also made to an investigative report by Cobrapost, which claims that group companies diverted nearly Rs 41,921 crore, including domestic borrowings and funds allegedly routed through offshore entities.

The petition further cites subsequent forensic audits, including a 2022 audit of Reliance Capital and a Grant Thornton report prepared during insolvency proceedings, pointing to preferential and undervalued transactions.

Despite searches at more than 35 premises, the petition claims no arrests have been made and no substantial assets frozen so far. Given the scale of the alleged fraud and the involvement of public financial institutions, the petitioner has sought a court-monitored investigation and the constitution of an expert committee to recommend systemic reforms to prevent recurrence of similar cases.