SC to hear PIL for court-monitored probe into alleged banking fraud involving RCOM

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Monday agreed to hear a PIL seeking a court-monitored investigation into alleged large-scale banking and corporate fraud involving Reliance Communications (RCOM), its group firms, and promoter Anil Ambani.

Lawyer Prashant Bhushan mentioned the plea before a bench of Chief Justice B R Gavai and Justices K Vinod Chandran and N V Anjaria, claiming that “bank fraud worth Rs 20,000 crore” had occurred and that an independent probe was necessary. The CJI agreed to list the matter.

The PIL, filed by former Union secretary E A S Sarma, alleges systemic diversion of public funds, falsification of financial statements and institutional failures across multiple companies of the Reliance ADA Group. It argues that a CBI FIR filed on August 21 and related ED proceedings cover only a fraction of the alleged wrongdoing.

Despite forensic audits flagging serious irregularities, the petition says investigators have not examined the role of bank officials, auditors or regulators — a gap the petitioner calls a “critical failure”. It also notes that findings of fund diversion have been acknowledged in a Bombay High Court ruling.

According to the PIL, RCOM and subsidiaries Reliance Infratel and Reliance Telecom obtained loans of Rs 31,580 crore from an SBI-led consortium between 2013 and 2017. A forensic audit commissioned by SBI and received in October 2020 allegedly found extensive diversion of funds, including repayment of unrelated loans and routing money through shell entities such as Netizen Engineering and Kunj Bihari Developers.

The petition cites instances of subsidiaries writing off liabilities through suspected sham preference-share deals, allegedly causing losses of over Rs 1,800 crore. It claims these patterns indicate a deliberate effort to hide losses and misuse bank funds. A major concern raised is SBI’s nearly five-year delay in acting on the audit report, with a complaint filed only in August 2025. The plea says this suggests “institutional complicity”, especially as nationalised bank officers are considered public servants under anti-corruption law.