Won’t Leave India Without Court’s Nod: Anil Ambani Tells Supreme Court Amid ₹40,000-Crore ADAG Probe
Anil Ambani told the Supreme Court he would not travel abroad without prior permission and pledged full cooperation with ED and CBI investigations into alleged ₹40,000 crore ADAG loan fraud
Supreme Court of India, ED, CBI, Anil Ambani
Anil Ambani has 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.
Ambani, in his affidavit, formally adopted the undertaking earlier given on his behalf by Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi before the Court on February 4. He stated that he has not left India since July 2025, when the present investigations commenced, and asserted that he currently has no plan or intention to travel overseas.
The industrialist further assured the Court that if any necessity for foreign travel arises in the future, he will seek prior permission of the Supreme Court before undertaking such travel.
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.
On the last hearing, the 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.
Previously, on January 30, Advocate Prashant Bhushan, for the petitioner, had argued that banks had written off huge debts after loans were allegedly diverted through a network of shell companies, and flagged that auditing and criminal proceedings were significantly delayed, with accounts suggesting that irregularities were first detected by the Bank of Baroda in 2020 but a formal FIR was lodged only in 2025.
The Solicitor General had acknowledged that a forensic audit had been conducted and that the State Bank of India had lodged an FIR based on its findings, but detailed steps taken by the agencies remained unclear. Therefore, the Supreme Court had directed the CBI and the ED to file status reports detailing the progress of their probes into the matter.
Case Title : EAS Sarma v. Union of India and others
Affidavit By: Anil Ambani
Affidavit Dated: February 18, 2026