'CBI Has Guts To Not Appear Before Us?' : Supreme Court Questions CBI's Absence In Plea For Probe Against Indiabulls Housing Finance

The Supreme Court today(July 21) passed strong critical oral remarks against the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) for not entering appearance in a case concerning allegations of serious illegalities, including round-tripping of funds, violations of provisions of the Companies Act, and siphoning of funds committed by the promoters of Indiabulls House Finance Limited (renamed as Sammaan Capital ltd) and its subsidiaries and their promoters. 

The Special Leave Petition is filed against the February 2, 2024, order passed by Delhi High Court rejecting the writ petition filed by Citizens Whistle Blower Forum seeking time-bound and in-depth investigation by a Special Investigation Team into the allegations. 

Appearing before a bench comprising Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi, Advocate Prashant Bhushan, who is the trustee of the petitioner-organisation, sought permission to appear. Before he could begin, Justice Kant said if the Directorate of Enforcement had entered appearance since they were made a party on April 7. Bhushan replied that ED has entered appearance and infact, filed a "damaging" affidavit. 

Explaining his case, Bhushan said: "This is one of the largest non-banking companies, the IndiaBulls. They used to give thousands of crores of loans to various corporate groups, which were supposedly involved in housing and in turn, it was found, those corporate groups gave loans or virtually gifts to the private companies of the promoters of IndiaBulls. There is one Vertika Group. 51 companies, operating from one place all of them having no assets or net worth, if one of them is given loan of networth of hundreds of crores. Total loan given to that Vertika group is more than 4,000 crores and the Vartika group people in turn gave loans to the promoters of the IndiaBulls. That is what SEBI and both ED has stated in their status report. ED says, we are being hampered because there is no predicate offence and therefore, we can't proceed. We then filed an application for the CBI to register an FIR. On that application, CBI was issued notice. CBI, unfortunately, and according to the office report, they have not entered an appearance. "

On being informed that the CBI has not entered appearance, Justice Kant expressed that the Court does not appreciate the non-appearance by the CBI, especially when the Court has issued notice. He said: "Why CBI not appearing after notice has been issued? We don't appreciate that conduct. Once this Court has issued notice, it is their duty to come at least. How can they say they will not appear in the Supreme Court? We will take up this matter next week, on Tuesday or Wednesday and let some responsible officer from CBI be present in court..."

Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, for Indiabulls, objected to the petitioner's argument. He said that the petitioner himself does not appear in the proceedings before the Delhi High Court. Commenting that the Court has nothing to do with the High Court's proceedings, Justice Kant said: "Mr Rohatgi, the allegations are of siphoning and misuse and abuse of thousands of crores of public money...and in all fairness, the central agencies should have investigated and come out with a report. If you are clean, they must say you are clean. If there is something wrong, nobody should escape the law. Nobody is above the law. We don't appreciate the CBI, despite notice by this Court, has the guts not to come to the Court to not say anything."

He also told Additional Solicitor General SV Raju, appearing for ED: "We are forming a view on this. But in a case where you have to take cognisance or suo moto, you might require a predicate offence, but where there is judicial intervention, there does not require any predicate offence FIR. Why can't you proceed?...Anyway, that is also an issue we would like to examine."

ASG Raju explained that CBI has its own limitation and can't start investigation like that as it requires consent. He said: "The CBI is not shy of the investigation." 

Rohatgi also said: "Not one member of the public has complained, our existence has been for 50 years. He is the only one in the PIL who talks about thousands of crores. Nobody should have said, i have been cheated, my money has been taken."

Keeping the matter to be heard on July 30, the Court ordered: "This Court by an order dated 13 May 1995 issued notice to the Central Bureau of Investigation and as per the notice report, the said agency has been duly served. Suprisingly, no one has entered appearance. SV Raju, learned Additional Solicitor General for India, seeks time and is granted one week time to have instructions..."

Before the Court could dictate the order, ASG Raju again tried explaining to the Court about's CBI absence. However, Justice Kant said: "CBI does not require a formal complainant Mr Raju...What more information is required? You have now became a party to the judicial report where all these allegations are a part of the judicial report. Somebody will have to read and form an opinion if prima facie it requires investigation or not."

Case Details: CITIZENS WHISTLE BLOWER FORUM Vs UNION OF INDIA|SLP(C) No. 2993/2025 Diary No. 50365 / 2024