SC allows CBI, ED to lead Reliance Group probe, says it cannot decide the course of investigation

The Supreme Court on Monday (July 13, 2026) refused to question the choice of people arrested during the investigation into allegations of financial fraud against the Reliance Group (formerly the Anil Dhirubhai Ambani Group or ADAG) and its promoter Anil Ambani. The court allowed the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and the Directorate of Enforcement (ED) to steer the probe.

A three-judge Bench headed by the Chief Justice of India Surya Kant exercised restraint even as the petitioner’s side highlighted that the investigation had so far only seen the arrests of “low-level” officers. Appearing for the petitioner, E.A.S Sarma, advocate Prashant Bhushan continued to term Mr. Ambani as “the kingpin”. The senior lawyer said he was not rooting for Mr. Ambani’s arrest, but that the probe agencies should at least disclose “what they have found about the role played by him”.

The allegations involved losses to the tune of over ₹20,000 crore to public sector banks, Mr. Bhushan said. “This is not a small amount,” he said.

But Chief Justice Kant said any comment made by the Supreme Court during an ongoing investigation, even though unintentional, would impact the trial.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, for the investigative agencies, said three chargesheets had already been filed in seven cases. The rest were under investigation. Status reports to be filed in the apex court were ready, Mr. Mehta said. The ED had separately filed four prosecution complaints.

“I cannot say anything about who should be or not be arrested, but there is a factual inaccuracy in what my learned friend (Mr. Bhushan) said about only low-level officers being arrested... Besides, things like when to arrest, whom or whether to arrest, I cannot as a Public Prosecutor say anything,” Mr. Mehta submitted, emphasising on the agencies’ discretion to command the course of an investigation.

Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for Mr. Ambani, said the Supreme Court’s own judgments had held that constitutional courts must not attempt to interfere or influence in a case once a chargesheet was filed. The trial courts must be given a clear field to exercise their judicial discretion.

It seemed as if the petitioner’s one-point agenda was to have someone arrested, Mr. Sibal said.

“I have no difficulty in the court looking into whether we had acted in accordance with law or not, but my friend cannot sit in appeal over how the probe must be held,” Mr. Mehta said.

The court allowed the investigative agencies to file their status reports. In a previous hearing, the top court had said that arrest must be the last resort, and not the first option.

Mr. Sarma had sought a court-monitored and extensive investigation into the allegations, with emphasis on the role of bank officials. The Solicitor General had earlier made it clear that he was not opposing the petitioner. Rather, he had submitted that a forensic audit had revealed “siphoning of funds”. He had submitted in an earlier hearing that the State Bank of India had registered a First Information Report with the CBI in compliance with the directions of a Reserve Bank of India circular.