Key Takeaways
- Supreme Court issues notices to Centre, CBI, ED and Anil Ambani over RCom fund diversion plea
- Alleged fraud involves tens of thousands of crores through complex transactions and shell entities
- ED has already frozen ₹3,084 crore assets and attached land worth ₹4,462 crore in related probes
The Supreme Court has taken significant action in the Reliance Communications fund diversion case, issuing formal notices to the Union government, investigative agencies and former promoter Anil Ambani. A bench led by Chief Justice B.R. Gavai has given three weeks for responses to a Public Interest Litigation demanding court-monitored investigation into alleged financial irregularities.
Scale of Alleged Fraud
The PIL filed by former Union secretary E.A.S. Sarma claims bank loans worth tens of thousands of crores were diverted through manipulated accounts, shell entities and complex internal transactions. The petition highlights concerning delays in fraud classification by lenders despite available forensic audit reports.
Advocate Prashant Bhushan, representing Sarma, described this as “probably the largest corporate fraud in India’s history.” He pointed to the delayed FIR filing in 2025 despite evidence dating back to 2007-08, emphasizing the need for judicial oversight.
Ongoing Investigations
This development comes amid multiple probes into Reliance Group companies. The CBI recently conducted searches in Mumbai in a separate RCom loan fraud case, while the ED has expanded its money laundering investigation.
By November 2025, the Enforcement Directorate had frozen assets worth ₹3,084 crore and attached 132 acres of Navi Mumbai land valued at ₹4,462 crore, alleging bank loan proceeds were laundered. RCom had entered bankruptcy proceedings in May 2019.
Reliance Group’s Response
Reliance Communications, responding to previous similar allegations by Cobrapost which claimed ₹41,921 crore fraud since 2006, denied any wrongdoing. The group alleged a coordinated campaign by corporate rivals to tarnish their reputation and manipulate market sentiment.
In an October statement, they characterized the allegations as “recycling of old information” already examined by agencies and an “organized attempt to prejudice a fair trial.”
The Supreme Court will hear the matter again after receiving responses from all parties, potentially ordering a monitored investigation based on the submissions.
