The Supreme Court on Monday (March 23, 2026) said the Directorate of Enforcement (ED) and the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) must probe the financial fraud allegations linked to Anil Dhirubhai Ambani Group (ADAG) and promoter Anil Ambani in a “transparent, fair and credible manner”, while making a note that the probe agencies’ previous conduct had shown “reluctance” and lack of discipline or structure.

“We do not want to get into who should be arrested and who should not in this case. It should not be taken as the court is interfering in the investigation. But your investigative agencies, the way they have shown reluctance and allowed things to go whichever way… that is not acceptable. The investigation should be done in a transparent, fair and credible manner,” Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, heading a three-judge Bench, addressed Solicitor General Tushar Mehta.

Mr. Mehta promised to personally convey the court’s message to ED and CBI directors in “harsher terms”.

“Your investigation must inspire confidence not only of the court, but of every stakeholder. People should be convinced that you have done a fair and completely independent investigation,” the Chief Justice addressed the top law officer.

Mr. Mehta, who submitted the second status report in the case, said a Special Investigation Team (SIT) was constituted on February 12. Assets worth ₹15,000 crore had been seized during the investigation, and the total wrongful loss identified to be caused by the fraud so far amounted to ₹40,185.55 crore of public money. He said seven separate cases were under active investigation, and the roles of public servants were under scrutiny.

“We have appointed three transaction auditors to look into the transactions for collusions, etc. Your Lordships have said the role of everyone should be investigated,” Mr. Mehta submitted on behalf of the CBI.

The Supreme Court observed that “probe agencies must join hands and make rigorous attempts to unearth the irregularities, illegalities or connivance of the public functionaries, especially financial institutions, if any”.

“We are making no opinion on the merits of allegations. The CBI and the ED have to complete the probe in a most dispassionate, fair, transparent and independent manner, and take it to a logical conclusion in a time-bound manner… All financial agencies have to extend full cooperation to the ED. In case of any delay or reluctance, the ED must make a submission to this court,” the Supreme Court advised.

Senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for Mr. Ambani, urged the court to allow his client to have a “dialogue” with the banks and try to arrive at a “fruitful resolution”. “Let the banks have a dialogue with me. They are not willing to talk as the case is pending in this court,” Mr. Rohatgi submitted.

Mr. Mehta interjected to point out that any criminal offence involved in the case had to be seen separately from any attempt to address civil liabilities involved in the case.

The Bench orally said it had not “stopped anyone” (from any such dialogue), but added, “It should not be a way for them to wriggle out of any consequences.”

Advocates Prashant Bhushan and Neha Rathi pointed out that very few people had been arrested despite a damning report from the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI).

“We have arrested four individuals. We cannot arrest randomly,” Mr. Mehta protested. Mr. Bhushan said the arrestees were “lowly officers”, drawing an objection from the law officer.

On February 4, a three-judge Bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant had directed the ED to constitute an SIT while ordering the CBI to conduct a comprehensive probe into the “nexus, connivance, conspiracy and collusion” among bank officials, authorities and the management of the companies. Mr. Mehta had said the fraud involved issuance of forged bank guarantees.