The PIL by former Union secretary E A S Sarma alleges systematic diversion of public funds and fabrication of accounts by RCom and related entities.
Petitioner claims CBI and ED are probing only a small part of the fraud and not examining bank officials’ roles.
The SC has sought replies from all parties within three weeks and posted the matter for further hearing.
SC seeks Centre, CBI and ED’s Replies on PIL Alleging Massive RCom Banking Fraud
The Supreme Court issued notices to the Centre, probe agencies and Anil Ambani after a PIL sought a court-monitored investigation into alleged large-scale fund diversion and complicity of banks in the Reliance Communications fraud case.
Summary
In response to a PIL requesting a court-monitored investigation into alleged massive financial and corporate fraud involving Reliance Communications (RCOM), its group businesses, and their promoter, the Supreme Court on Tuesday sent notifications to the Centre, CBI, ED, Anil Ambani, and other parties.
A bench made up of Chief Justice B R Gavai and Justice K Vinod Chandran noted the arguments made by attorney Prashant Bhushan, who was representing PIL petitioner and former Union secretary E A S Sarma, and requested responses within three weeks.
After three weeks, the bench has now posted the PIL for additional hearing.
Bhushan alleged that the probe agencies are not investigating the alleged complicity of banks and their officials in the huge banking fraud. He sought a direction to the CBI and the ED to file respective status reports with regard to the probe against banks and their officials in the case.
“Issue notice… returnable in three weeks. Let them file their replies,” the CJI said.
The PIL claimed that the Anil Ambani-led Reliance ADA Group's various firms engaged in institutional collusion, financial statement fraud, and systematic misappropriation of public monies.
It said the FIR registered by the CBI on August 21, along with connected Enforcement Directorate (ED) proceedings, addresses merely a small segment of the alleged fraud.
The petition alleges that neither agency is looking into the participation of bank executives, auditors, or regulators despite thorough forensic audits identifying significant abnormalities, which he refers to as a "critical failure."
The motion further stated that the Bombay High Court's ruling had "recognised" the findings of systematic fraud and money diversion.
Published At:
Tags