The Supreme Court said it was shocked after seeing an Enforcement Directorate report, which revealed that loans worth ₹2,983 crore taken by companies of the Anil Dhirubhai Ambani Group (ADAG) were settled in insolvency proceedings for just ₹26 crore. This was allegedly done through a plan called “Project Help” involving eight Non-Banking Finance Companies.

A bench led by CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi, and Justice Vipul Pancholi was hearing a petition by EAS Sarma. The petition asked for an investigation into an alleged ₹40,000 crore loan fraud involving ADAG companies.

Court Pushes Probe Speed:

The court had earlier criticized the 'sluggish’ response of the agencies and had urged the ED and CBI to speed up their investigations. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta told the bench that a Special Investigation Team (SIT) of ED officers has now been formed and the investigation is ongoing. He also said it will be completed in four weeks. The Court stressed that the probe must be fair, unbiased, and done on time.

The order explained the structure of the SIT. It includes an Additional Director, two Deputy Directors, four Assistant Directors/Investigating Officers from the ED, along with forensic experts and two staff members from Bank of Baroda. Investigations have been started in eight cases.

Project Help Findings:

“It is pointed out that investigations/enquiries into 8 cases have commenced and some documents have been seized. It is not necessary for us to refer to the nature of documents said to have been seized. There is a reference to PROJECT HELP, which is said to have revealed how insolvency petitions were deliberately initiated through unrelated lenders. According to the report, all funding by IBC acquisitions were arranged through a group of 8 NBFCs. On illustrative basis, it is pointed out that claims approx. Rs.2983 crores were extinguished for a total settlement of Rs.26 crores”, the order observed.

The CBI said in its affidavit that seven investigations are ongoing, including scrutiny of public servants' roles.

Court’s Direction to Agencies:

In this context, the bench said:

"This is a case where senior functionaries of the investigating agencies must join hands and make vigorous attempts to unearth the irregularities/illegalities or the connivance of public functionaries, specially the financial institutions, if any, in giving undue benefit to the [...].

While we do not express any opinion on the merits of the allegations, all that we wish to observe is that it is imperative upon the CBI and the ED to complete the investigation in a most dispassionate, fair, transparent and independent manner and take the ongoing investigations to logical conclusion in a timebound manner."

It further added: "Learned SG assures that no stone shall be left unturned to unearth the truth and that endeavor shall be made to complete investigation in 4 weeks".

Cooperation Warning:

The Court mandated that banks and agencies must fully cooperate in the investigation. It also warned that any delay or foot-dragging by the ED must be reported back to the court.

Ambani Seeks Talks

Senior Advocate Mukul Rohtagi, appearing for Anil Ambani, asked for talks with banks to resolve the issue. He said banks are hesitant because of the case. CJI Surya Kant responded:

“We have not stopped anyone. And Banks will open…they will happily enter into…because that’s another way for them to wriggle out of the consequences. If any.”

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta said that the CBI has appointed three transaction auditors and has attached assets worth ₹15,000 crores.

Debate Over Arrests:

Advocate Prashant Bhushan asked why key arrests have not been made. He referred to a SEBI report that allegedly showed a fraud scheme by Ambani and RHFL executives to divert public funds as loans, and said that no major arrests have happened yet.

Mehta replied that four arrests have been made, saying:

“We cannot arrest randomly. it has to go investigation-wise”

Bhushan responded that those arrested were only minor players.

Court on Arrest Powers:

The CJI clarified:

“we may not say who should and should not be arrested”

He also criticized the earlier delay by the agencies, saying:

“The way investigating agencies have shown reluctance, that’s not acceptable. They should come out in a fair, transparent and timebound manner that this is what we have concluded after investigation. Investigation must inspire confidence - not only of the court but of all stakeholders”.

Case Details: EAS Sarma v. Union of India and others | W.P.(C) No. 1217/2025