New Delhi. The Supreme Court on Monday strongly criticised its administrative Registry during the hearing of a bail plea linked to a ₹37,000 crore investment fraud case, after noting that notice had not been issued to the Enforcement Directorate despite an earlier judicial direction. The court described the lapse as serious and ordered a fact-finding inquiry into how the direction was handled.
ED Notice Delay Draws Court’s Rebuke
The Bench observed that an order passed on March 23 had clearly indicated that the Enforcement Directorate should be impleaded as a party in the proceedings. However, the Registry allegedly failed to act on the direction in the required manner, leading to procedural delay.
FCRF Academy Launches Premier Anti-Money Laundering Certification Program
The court questioned how an administrative interpretation could override or dilute a judicial mandate when the order was explicit. It made strong remarks against the Registry, including that some officials appeared to be acting like a “super Chief Justice of India”.
Investment Fraud Case Under Scrutiny
The matter relates to allegations against Ayushi Mittal, also known as Ayushi Agarwal, her husband and their company in connection with an alleged investment fraud exceeding ₹37,000 crore. The allegations involve collection of funds from investors under false promises and alleged diversion of money for unauthorised purposes.
The defence has argued that a significant portion of investor funds has been returned. Investigative agencies, however, have maintained that several hundred crore rupees remain frozen in bank accounts linked to the accused. The court has made it clear that the bail plea will not be considered unless a complete disclosure of assets is submitted.
Inquiry Ordered Into Registry’s Handling
Taking note of the lapse, the Supreme Court directed the Registrar Judicial to conduct a fact-finding inquiry into how the March 23 order was interpreted in a way that resulted in notice not being issued to the ED. The court also directed that notice be served to the agency immediately.
The Bench said administrative authorities cannot assume judicial powers or independently interpret court directions. It warned that such actions could affect public confidence in the judicial system and delay proceedings in sensitive financial crime cases.
The court reiterated that bail consideration would depend on full disclosure of assets belonging to the accused, their family members and entities linked to the company. The matter is scheduled to be heard again in May after affidavits are filed and the inquiry progresses.
