Cannot Direct Anil Ambani's Arrest: Supreme Court During ₹41,000 Crore ADAG Banking Fraud Probe Hearing

The Supreme Court today orally remarked that it cannot direct arrest of Anil Ambani in connection with the case concerning banking frauds, allegedly involving Reliance Communications Ltd.

This remark fell from the court as a response to continued submissions by Advocate Prashant Bhushan seeking arrest of Anil Ambani and his son. "I find it very puzzling that Anil Ambani has not been arrested till now, he is the kingpin. It is as if he is some holy cow, he is above being arrested..this is very puzzling to me..they are arresting some lower functionaries, " Bhushan told the bench today.

In response Justice Bagchi told Bhushan, "We cannot direct arrest of an accused Mr. Bhushan..we cannot go contrary to the law we have laid down ourselves in Antim, Pankaj Bansal etc."

Court was further told by Bhushan that the investigating agencies had chargesheeted the main accused Anil Ambani and his son, but they were not arresting him. They have recorded how money has been siphoned off by buying yachts etc, he added.

In response to this, Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal appearing for Ambani told the bench, "How does he have the chargesheet..cognizance has not been taken till now..this is very very unfair, I cooperate every time I am called, for the last two years I have not gone abroad..maybe I was cheated milords.."

The bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi was informed by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta that multiple investigations by the CBI and ED were underway. SG Mehta also placed a status report before the Court, stating two FIRs had been registered against Reliance Telecom on complaints by SBI, while nine regular cases had been registered in total. Of these, seven were under investigation and two have already been chargesheeted. He added that the total loss in the seven cases under probe was Rs 27,337 crore. He further stated that two arrests had already been made and “a few more” were likely in the coming days.

Last week, before a CJI Surya Kant led bench of the Supreme Court ED and EBI had filed their status reports on their respective probe into the banking frauds. then too Bhushan had told the bench, "Anil Ambani, who has been identified as the kingpin has not been arrested till now.." In response, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta had said, "I cannot respond on why X or Y has not been arrested.."

On March 25, 2026 Enforcement Directorate had informed court that it had constituted a SIT as directed by court to probe the into banking frauds. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta had further informed a CJI Surya Kant led bench that CBI had so far registered eight separate cases involving alleged siphoning off nearly Rs 41,000 crore from bank loans. Four top officials of ADAG group have been arrested so far, Mehta added. SG Mehta further informed the bench that CBI is taking help of financial experts to unravel the complex routing and re-routing of money.

Notably, the Supreme Court had expressed displeasure over the "reluctance" shown by the CBI and the ED in probing the alleged large-scale banking fraud involving the Anil Dhirubhai Ambani Group and its firms, and directed them to conduct a "fair, dispassionate, transparent, and time-bound" investigation into the matter.

Earlier, Anil Ambani had filed an affidavit before the Supreme Court, undertaking that he will not travel abroad without prior permission of the Court and will fully cooperate with the ongoing investigations by the Directorate of Enforcement and the Central Bureau of Investigation into alleged financial irregularities involving Anil Dhirubhai Ambani Group (ADAG) companies.

The affidavit was filed in response to a writ petition moved by former bureaucrat EAS Sarma, seeking a court-monitored investigation into alleged loan frauds exceeding ₹40,000 crore by ADAG entities. Emphasising his cooperation with the probe agencies, Ambani stated that he has been fully assisting the investigation and continues to extend complete cooperation. He also disclosed that the Enforcement Directorate has summoned him to appear on February 26, 2026, and undertook to present himself and join the investigation on the scheduled date.

Previously, court had sharply rebuked the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and the Enforcement Directorate (ED) for the slow pace and narrow scope of their probes into allegations of widespread bank loan fraud by Reliance Communications Ltd. (RCom), its group companies and promoter Anil Ambani. The court had underscored that both agencies must accelerate their investigations and bring them to logical conclusions without further delay. It had also asked the ED to constitute a Special Investigation Team (SIT) to probe the matter.

The bench had expressed concern over what it described as “unexplained delay” by the ED in probing the alleged siphoning of loans exceeding ₹40,000 crore by RCom entities. It had also took issue with the CBI’s practice of treating multiple banking complaints as extensions of a single FIR, rather than registering separate cases for each distinct transaction.

Petitioner EAS Sarma, a former union government secretary, has implored the court to take supervisory control of the investigation, arguing that the ongoing probes are piecemeal and fall short of examining all implicated parties, including bank officials and public servants. It echoed concerns about procedural propriety, observing that each bank’s complaint may amount to a separate offence warranting fresh registration. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the CBI and ED, had informed the court that separate status reports have been filed by both agencies. The bench had made clear it expects these investigations to be pursued vigorously and without further hindrance.

In response to a submission that the court should bar Anil Ambani from leaving the country amid the probe, Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for Anil Ambani, offered an undertaking that his client would not depart India without prior permission of the Supreme Court. The undertaking was recorded by the bench, with assurances from the Solicitor General that all necessary preventive measures, including lookout notices, would be maintained. Sarma's writ petition seeks a court-monitored investigation into what is described as one of the country’s largest banking frauds.

Case Title: EAS Sarma v. Union of India and others

Bench: CJI Kant and Justice Bagchi

Hearing Date: March 23, 2026