SC monitors Reliance ADAG bank fraud probe, seeks fresh status report

The Supreme Court refused to comment on Anil Ambani's role in the ongoing multi-crore bank fraud probe involving Reliance ADAG companies. While continuing to monitor the case, it asked the CBI and ED to file a fresh status report on the investigation.

The Supreme Court on Monday refused to make any specific observations on whether, or to what extent, the central investigating agencies, including the Directorate of Enforcement (ED) and the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), were investigating industrialist Anil Ambani, while continuing to monitor the ongoing probe into the alleged multi-crore bank fraud involving Reliance ADAG companies.

Probe status and chargesheets

A bench led by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant recorded the submission of Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the CBI and ED, that chargesheets had been filed in three cases while the remaining investigations were still underway. The Court granted time to the agencies to place a fresh status report on record and posted the matter for further consideration on the next date of hearing. The next date of hearing would be mentioned in the order copy, which is yet to be uploaded to the Supreme Court website.

"With reference to para 7 of the brief note reproduced in our order dated May 7, learned Solicitor General submits that chargesheets have been filed in three cases while the rest remain pending. Learned Solicitor General seeks time to file a status report. The latest status report is taken on record," the Court noted.

Arguments on Ambani's alleged role

The order came after Advocate Prashant Bhushan, appearing for PIL petitioner EAS Sarma, contended that despite the agencies earlier indicating that three chargesheets would be filed by June, they had not disclosed what action, if any, had been taken against Anil Ambani. Bhushan alleged that Anil Ambani, arrayed as Respondent No. 5, was the Chairman of Reliance Communications companies and was responsible for issuing fake bank guarantees.

"SEBI has called him the kingpin, yet no action has been taken against him. They have arrested lowly officers. I'm not saying they should arrest him, but at least some action," Bhushan submitted. Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta, representing ED and CBI on the other hand, argued that the suggestion that the agencies had acted only against "lowly" officials. "Out of seven investigations, three chargesheets are already filed. There are no 'lowly' arrests. One Managing Director has been arrested," Mehta submitted.

At this stage, Chief Justice Kant verbally observed that the role of any individual would emerge from the chargesheets themselves. "The role of any individual will anyway be highlighted in the chargesheet," the Court observed.

Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for Anil Ambani, objected to the submissions made by the petitioner and argued that the proceedings should not be used to press for the arrest of a particular individual. "My learned friend's one-point agenda is that one person is arrested. It is not fair," Sibal submitted.

SC refrains from influencing investigation

The Court declined to enter into the merits of the allegations against Anil Ambani, observing that any discussion on the contents of the chargesheets at this stage could have a bearing on the ongoing investigation. "If a chargesheet is filed, and you raise any argument, we are to consider it. It will have some influence on the investigation," the Chief Justice observed.

When Bhushan urged the Court to at least examine whether the chargesheets contained any material against Anil Ambani, the Bench refused to record any such observation. "We are not making it a part of the record. You yourself (agencies) go through the chargesheet and find out if there is anything on Respondent No. 5," the Court said.

Sibal responded that even such an observation could influence the proceedings, pointing out that cognisance of the chargesheets was yet to be taken by the trial court. The CJI acknowledged the concern and reiterated that the Court was consciously refraining from making observations that could affect the investigation or subsequent proceedings.

"We are over-conscious of the fact that our statements would have an influence on the parties," the Chief Justice remarked.

On May 8, the Supreme Court had declined to issue any adverse directions after the CBI and ED informed it that investigations into the alleged bank fraud were progressing. The agencies had then stated that investigations were underway, chargesheets had already been filed in some cases, and arrests had been made. Observing that it would, for the present, leave the investigation to the "wisdom" of the investigating agencies, the Court had continued to monitor the matter while directing the agencies to periodically apprise it of the progress in the investigation. (ANI)

(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by Asianet Newsable English staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)