By: The Trek News Desk
The Supreme Court on Tuesday issued notices to the Centre and key investigative agencies over a petition demanding a court-monitored probe into what is being described as potentially “the largest corporate fraud in India’s history.” The allegations concern bank fraud involving Reliance Communications and other companies associated with industrialist Anil Ambani.
Top Court Issues Notice to Centre and Agencies
A bench led by Chief Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice K. Vinod Chandran sought responses from the Union government, the CBI, the Enforcement Directorate (ED), the Anil Dhirubhai Ambani Group, and Anil Ambani himself. Former Union Secretary E.A.S. Sarma filed the petition.
“Fraud Began in 2007, FIR Filed Only in 2025”
Appearing for the petitioner, advocate Prashant Bhushan argued that the alleged financial irregularities date back to 2007–08, yet the First Information Report (FIR) was registered only this year. Bhushan added that both the CBI and ED must disclose what they have investigated so far, asserting that “the collusion of banks” has largely gone unexamined.
Petitioner Seeks Wider Investigation Beyond the 2025 FIR
The plea contends that the probe shouldn’t be restricted to the 2025 FIR or the ED’s ongoing inquiries. It states that several publicly available reports and audits have already pointed to serious misconduct, including fund diversion and suspicious transactions, but these findings have not been fully investigated.
Delay Despite 2020 Forensic Report Raises Questions
According to the petition, banks were aware of red flags highlighted in a 2020 forensic audit, which detailed alleged diversion of funds, fictitious deals, evergreening of loans, and the use of shell entities. Despite this, the bank waited until August 2025 to initiate formal action. The plea argues that such a delay suggests possible collusion or deliberate inaction by senior bank officials.
“Institutional Complicity Not Investigated by CBI or ED”
The petition further alleges that investigators have ignored the role of bank officials and public servants whose decisions may have enabled or hidden the fraud.
By excluding this “institutional angle,” the agencies are leaving a crucial part of the alleged criminal conspiracy untouched, the petitioner argues.
Source: News Agencies
