The Supreme Court on Friday sought status reports from the CBI and the Enforcement Directorate on the investigations conducted so far into the alleged embezzlement of ₹1.5 lakh crore from banks by industrialist Anil Ambani and his Anil Dhirubhai Ambani Group (ADAG).
If the investigation by the two agencies is not complete, then the status report will have to be filed in a “sealed cover”, the top court ordered.
A bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi also issued fresh notices to Anil Ambani and ADAG, asking them to respond to former IAS officer E.A.S. Sarma’s allegation that the authorities had not taken any action on the embezzlement despite the alleged fraud being detected in 2020.
The apex court issued the fresh notice as a last opportunity to Anil Ambani and ADAG, noting that despite the earlier notice issued in November 2025, the two respondents had failed to appear before the court. However, the CBI and the ED, represented by solicitor-general Tushar Mehta, appeared on Friday.
“As per the office report, service is complete and respondent nos. 4 (Anil Ambani) and 5 (ADAG) have been duly served. They have, however, for reasons best known to them, not entered appearance. In the interest of justice and as a last opportunity, respondent nos. 4 and 5 are permitted to enter appearance and file their respective counter affidavits, if any, before the next date of hearing.
“The registry is directed to issue fresh notice to respondent nos. 4 and 5. An additional set of notices be sent to the registrar-general of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay. The registrar-general will ensure that the fresh notices are served on respondent nos. 4 and 5. Thereafter, a compliance report shall be forwarded to this court.
“Since respondent nos. 1 to 3 (Union government, CBI and ED) have been served and entered appearance through the learned solicitor-general of India, the Directorate of Enforcement and Central Bureau of Investigation, both are directed to file status reports with respect to their ongoing investigations. If the investigation is still not complete, such status reports may be initially filed before this court in a sealed cover. Post the matter on 04.02.2026 as first item,” the bench said in a written order.
Appearing for Sarma, advocate Prashant Bhushan termed the issue a more “complex corporate fraud” than the earlier one involving India Bulls. According to him, in the present case, a cumulative debt of ₹1.5 lakh crore has been written off by the banks. He said the fraud was first detected in 2020 by Bank of Baroda and the CBI had registered an FIR in June 2025, but to date no public servant had been named.
Mehta said the government was not opposing the petition and a forensic audit conducted by the SBI had revealed siphoning of funds and that an FIR had been lodged by the CBI. The forensic report was sought to be challenged by the corporate entity before a trial court but there is no stay on the proceedings relating to the case.
On November 18, 2025, the bench of then Chief Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice K. Vinod Chandran had sought the responses of the CBI, the ED, Anil Ambani and ADAG on the PIL seeking a court-monitored probe into the alleged fraud committed by the corporate house. At the time, the allegation was of a fraud of ₹20,000 crore, contrary to Bhushan’s submission on Friday that the amount was over ₹1.5 lakh crore.
The PIL has been filed by former Union secretary Sarma on the ground that the investigations into some of the allegations should not be limited to the narrow scope of the SBI FIR and the connected investigations by the ED, but include all grave offences revealed in various reports/ documents available in the
public domain. The CBI is simultaneously investigating the case.
According to the petition, the investigating agencies have in the present matter overlooked the five-year delay in SBI filing the FIR, which indicates the involvement of bank officials and public servants whose conduct enabled, concealed, or facilitated the fraud.
“...Since these bank officials are ‘public servants’ under Section 2(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, their omissions and commissions attract offences under the act, making the agencies’ failure to probe them a
grave legal deficiency,” the petition claimed.