The Supreme Court on Friday heard extensive submissions in a matter concerning ongoing investigations into alleged financial irregularities involving entities of the Reliance ADAG group, where questions were raised regarding the scope of judicial monitoring, arrests in economic offences and the impact of prolonged investigations on listed companies.

During the hearing, the Solicitor General Tushar Mehta informed the Court that the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) had registered multiple FIRs against Reliance ADAG entities, including Reliance Telecom Limited and Reliance Communications, concerning alleged fraud involving public sector banks and LIC. According to the status REPORT placed before the Court, seven cases remain under investigation while two cases have already been charge-sheeted. The agency stated that the total alleged loss in the pending cases was approximately ₹27,337 crore.

The CBI further informed the Court that searches had been conducted at 14 locations, more than 224 witnesses had been examined and over 3,960 documents had been collected. It was also stated that two arrests had already been made and “few more arrests” could follow as further evidence surfaced.

Senior Advocate Prashant Bhushan submitted that despite investigative agencies allegedly identifying Anil Ambani as the “kingpin” in the alleged scam, no coercive action had been taken against him. Mr Bhushan argued:

“Everywhere, SEBI is saying this, CBI is saying this, ED is saying this, that in this 27,000 crore plus scam, Anil Ambani is the kingpin…Yet, my Lord, I find it very puzzling that neither CBI nor ED, nobody is willing to arrest him as if he is some holy cow.”

The Court, however, clarified that courts must exercise restraint while monitoring criminal investigations and cannot direct arrests merely because allegations are serious. The Bench observed:

“This Court has repeatedly said that we will be extremely strict in directing arrest of defendants.”

The Court further stated that issues concerning arrest, custodial interrogation and the manner of investigation must primarily remain within the domain of investigating agencies unless there is clear justification for judicial intervention. The Court further remarked that the focus of judicial monitoring should remain on the collection and preservation of evidence rather than “sensationalisation” of the investigation.

Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing during the proceedings, objected to repeated demands seeking the arrest of Ambani and remarked: “Your only agenda is arrest Anil Ambani…every time they have called me, I have cooperated. I have not sought anticipatory bail. That is why we are not saying anything, but this is very unfair ”

At one stage, the Court also reflected on the larger consequences of monitored investigations and observed that such proceedings can sometimes lead to severe collateral damage even before final adjudication. The Court clarified that it was presently only monitoring the progress of the investigation and was not expressing any opinion either on the merits of the allegations or on the necessity of arrest at this stage.

Also read– SC Refuses to Interfere with HC Order Lifting Interim Protection to Anil Ambani in Fraud Tag Case
https://thebarbulletin.com/supreme-court-fraud-classification-dispute-no-interference/