‘Why This Reluctance?’ SC Asks CBI, SEBI Over Indiabulls Case, Seeks Detailed Affidavits
Supreme Court sharply criticised SEBI and CBI for their hesitation in pursuing serious financial irregularities alleged against Indiabulls Housing Finance
SC rebuked SEBI and CBI over lack of action in the Indiabulls Housing Finance investigation, highlighting concerns about public funds and regulatory accountability
The Supreme Court on Wednesday delivered sharp criticism against the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) and the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) for their reluctance to pursue investigations into allegations against Indiabulls Housing Finance Ltd. (now Sammaan Capital).
The case, taken up on a plea by Citizens Whistle Blower Forum seeking a court-monitored SIT probe, concerns accusations of siphoning funds, round-tripping, large-scale corporate irregularities and violations of the Companies Act by Indiabulls, its promoters and related entities.
The Bench of Justices Surya Kant, Ujjal Bhuyan and N Kotiswar Singh questioned SEBI’s stance, calling out what it described as a pattern of inconsistency.
Justice Kant remarked that when it came to possession and sale of attached properties, SEBI claimed exclusive jurisdiction, but hesitated when the issue was investigation. He noted that the regulator’s approach reflected “double standards”, further questioning why the agency’s officers were drawing salaries if they lacked authority to act.
Justice Kant also referred to a previous instance in which SEBI sold property worth Rs 30 crore for only a few lakhs. The Court said that when statutory powers exist, the regulator should exercise them rather than suggest an absence of jurisdiction.
The Bench also criticised the CBI’s approach, noting an unusually “cool attitude” in handling the matter. Justice Kant observed that despite serious allegations involving public funds, the agency had neither registered a predicate FIR nor taken decisive steps to strengthen the broader investigation.
The Court was also concerned by the Ministry of Corporate Affairs having allegedly compounded around 100 violations within just two days, asking what “interest” prevented deeper scrutiny.
Advocate Prashant Bhushan, appearing for the petitioner, argued that the material on record justified a court-directed FIR and proposed an SIT consisting of officers from SEBI, CBI, ED and SFIO.
Additional Solicitor General SV Raju informed the Court that efforts had already been made before the magistrate and Economic Offences Wing in Delhi under Section 156(3) CrPC, but without concrete progress. He assured the bench that the CBI Director would convene a meeting with senior officers of all agencies concerned.
Tension heightened when SEBI’s counsel reportedly expressed hesitation in joining coordinated action, prompting Justice Kant’s strongest remarks of the day.
The Court directed the CBI to file a fresh affidavit, following ASG Raju’s submission that the Enforcement Directorate would submit a renewed complaint.
Additionally, the Delhi Police Commissioner has been tasked with assigning a senior EOW officer to place on record the inquiry proceedings and the reasons for concluding that ED’s complaint did not disclose a cognizable offence.
Case Title: Citizens Whistle Blower Forum v. Union of India
Hearing Date: November 19, 2025
Bench: Justices Surya Kant, Ujjal Bhuyan and N Kotiswar Singh