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 selection of persons arrested during the investigation into allegations of financial fraud against Reliance Group (formerly Anil Dhirubhai Ambani Group or ADAG) and its promoter Anil Ambani. The court allowed the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and the Enforcement Directorate (ED) to direct the investigation.

The three-judge bench, headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, showed restraint even as the petitioner’s side emphasized that only “low-level” officers have been arrested so far in the investigation. Petitioner EAS Sarma’s lawyer Prashant Bhushan went on to call Mr. Ambani the “ringleader”. The senior lawyer said he did not support Mr Ambani’s arrest but that investigating agencies should at least explain “what they found about the role he played”.

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

However, Chief Justice Kant said that any comments made by the Supreme Court, even unintentional, during an ongoing investigation would affect the case.

Chief Prosecutor of investigation agencies Tushar Mehta said three chargesheets have already been lodged in seven cases. The rest were under investigation. Mr. Mehta said that the situation reports to be submitted to the top court are ready. The ED had filed four separate prosecution complaints.

Highlighting the agency’s discretion to direct the course of the investigation, Mr. Mehta said, “I cannot say anything about who should or should not be arrested, but there is a material inaccuracy in what my learned friend (Mr. Bhushan) has said about arresting only lower-level officers… Also, as a Public Prosecutor, I cannot say anything about when to arrest, who to arrest or whether to arrest or not.”

Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, Mr. Ambani’s lawyer, said the Supreme Court’s own judgments had stated that constitutional courts should not intervene or influence the case once an indictment is filed. Trial courts should be given clear scope to exercise their judicial discretion.

Mr. Sibal said the petitioner’s sole aim appeared to be to get someone arrested.

“I have no difficulty in investigating whether we acted lawfully in court, but my friend cannot appeal as to how the investigation should have been conducted,” Mr. Mehta said.

The court allowed the investigating agencies to submit their situation reports. In an earlier hearing, the high court had said that arrest should be a last resort and not a first option.

Mr. Sarma had demanded a thorough, court-monitored investigation into the allegations, with emphasis on the role of bank officials. The Attorney General had earlier made it clear that he was not against the petitioner. Rather, he argued, the forensic audit 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 accordance with the directions of the Reserve Bank of India circular.