The Supreme Court has said that it will not order the arrest of industrialist Anil Ambani in the bank fraud case linked to Reliance Communications (RCOM) and its group companies. Recently, several banks in India had declared his account as Fraud.
A Bench led by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi said arrests cannot be ordered just to sensationalise a case. The court said an arrest should happen only if the investigating agencies believe it is necessary.
Justice Bagchi said the Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that courts should be careful while ordering arrests unless the investigating agency specifically seeks custodial interrogation.
Chief Justice Surya Kant added that there are cases where custodial interrogation becomes necessary, but the decision should be left to the investigating agencies.
Why the question of arrest?
The Banks had declared the account as Fraud and proceedings are underway. Then how, the matter of arrest came into light?
As of May 2026, Anil Ambani and his Reliance Group (ADAG) firms are facing investigations into alleged bank fraud totaling over ₹27,000 crore across seven major cases. Multiple lenders, including State Bank of India (SBI), Bank of Baroda, and Bank of India, have classified loans to Reliance Communications (RCom) and related entities as “fraud” due to alleged fund diversion and misutilization.
The court was hearing a petition filed by former government secretary EAS Sarma. The petition sought a court-monitored investigation into allegations against Reliance group companies and Anil Ambani.
According to the petition, RCOM and its subsidiaries — Reliance Infratel and Reliance Telecom — received loans worth ₹31,580 crore between 2013 and 2017 from a consortium of banks led by State Bank of India (SBI).
The plea claimed that a forensic audit commissioned by SBI found large-scale diversion of funds. It alleged that thousands of crores were used to repay unrelated loans, transferred to related parties, invested in mutual funds and fixed deposits, and routed through complex transactions to allegedly hide loan evergreening.
The petitioner earlier alleged that investigating agencies were not properly examining the role of bank officials and regulators despite detailed audit reports pointing to widespread fraud.
After allegations of “institutional complicity,” the Supreme Court had earlier directed the Enforcement Directorate (ED) in February to form a Special Investigation Team (SIT) to investigate the matter.
During Friday’s hearing, the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and ED submitted their investigation reports to the court in sealed covers.
Advocate Prashant Bhushan, appearing for the petitioner, claimed that the agencies had chargesheeted Anil Ambani and his son Anmol Ambani. He alleged that the chargesheet mentioned money siphoning and the purchase of a yacht.
Bhushan argued that Anil Ambani was the “kingpin” of the alleged ₹17,000 crore scam, but investigating agencies were not arresting him while taking action against others.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta told the court that the investigation was still ongoing. He said the agencies were following the correct course and could make changes if necessary. The Chief Justice said the court was willing to wait after reviewing the sealed cover reports.
Justice Bagchi referred to earlier Supreme Court judgments, including the Satender Kumar Antil case, and said arrest is not necessary if there is no risk of tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses.
Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for Anil Ambani, questioned how the petitioner had obtained a copy of the chargesheet. He argued that the petitioner’s main objective was to seek Ambani’s arrest.
Senior Advocate Shyam Divan, appearing for Reliance Infra and Reliance Power, highlighted the impact of the investigation on group companies.
He said lender-controlled accounts monitored all project revenues and that funds could not be transferred without lender approval. Divan also said several attachment orders had affected major utility holdings, including shares in BSES Rajdhani, BSES Yamuna, and Mumbai Metro.
According to him, these companies provide important public services, including electricity supply to millions of people in Delhi, and the investigation had caused financial and reputational damage.
Justice Bagchi said the court was currently only examining the issue of jurisdiction and would not comment on the investigation itself. The court later adjourned the matter until July without passing any further directions.
