Supreme Court Issues Notices to Anil Ambani, ADAG on Banking Fraud PIL

On January 23, 2026, the Supreme Court of India requested comprehensive status updates from the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and the Enforcement Directorate (ED) regarding alleged banking frauds associated with the Reliance Anil Dhirubhai Ambani Group (ADAG) and its founder, Anil Ambani. This directive followed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) which accused the company of significant financial misconduct.

Supreme Court Directives and Background

A bench led by Chief Justice Surya Kant served fresh notices to both Anil Ambani and ADAG. These notices were deemed a crucial last opportunity for the parties to engage, as neither had appeared in court.

The PIL, submitted by former bureaucrat E.A.S. Sarma, argued for a stringent investigation into the actions of bank officials involved in the fraud. Legal representative Prashant Bhushan claimed that fraudulent transactions, involving the siphoning of funds through multiple shell companies, may have led to debts of approximately ₹1.5 lakh crore being written off.

Forensic Audits and Institutional Complicity

• The Bank of Baroda allegedly identified irregularities as early as 2020.
• A First Information Report (FIR) was registered by the CBI in June 2025, based on findings from a forensic audit.
• The audit report indicated systemic financial malpractice, including allegations of forging financial statements.

Solicitor-General Tushar Mehta conveyed that a forensic review had indeed pointed to a significant diversion of funds. He acknowledged the ongoing legal issues around the audit report’s validity, which was under review in the Bombay High Court.

Calls for a Special Investigation Team (SIT)

The petition urged the formation of a Special Investigation Team (SIT) including members from both the CBI and ED. The goal is to conduct a meticulous review of the claims without external pressures.

Bhushan emphasized that the investigation should encompass all dimensions of financial irregularities and misconduct identified in the forensic audit, including roles played by public sector bank officials and regulatory authorities.

Wider Implications and Recommendations

Sarma’s petition highlighted a pattern of systemic failures, with accounts amounting to over ₹20,000 crore involved in the alleged fraud. Despite extensive searches across more than 35 locations, no individual has been arrested, and crucial assets remain untapped.

The case raises alarm about the integrity of financial institutions and regulatory systems in India. The petition called for substantial procedural reforms to prevent similar occurrences in the future.

The court’s engagement in these matters reveals the critical intersection of legal frameworks, corporate governance, and accountability within India’s banking sector, underscoring the necessity for thorough investigations into large-scale financial crimes.