'Sitting In London', 'Blackmailers': Sharp Exchange Between Harish Salve & Prashant Bhushan; Supreme Court Seeks ED's Stand On Indiabulls

During the hearing of Citizens Whistle Blower Forum's plea for SIT probe against Indiabulls Housing Finance Ltd. (now Sammaan Capital), Senior Advocate Harish Salve and Advocate Prashant Bhushan today exchanged sharp words before the Supreme Court.

Taking objection to Salve's use of the word 'blackmailer' for the petitioner-Forum, Bhushan took a dig at Salve, saying that he had the "audacity" to make such a claim while sitting in London. The counsel highlighted that the Forum is headed by former Delhi High Court Chief Justice AP Shah, and has Professor Aruna Roy, former navy personnel, secretaries of Government of India, etc. as its trustees.

In retort, Salve said that if Bhushan is "jealous", he could also shift to London. In response to Bhushan's comment that the senior counsel was not aware of the contents of affidavits filed in the matter as he was sitting in London, Salve said, "one can read an affidavit written in simple English sitting in any city".

For context, Salve was questioning the maintainability of the petitioner-Forum's petition, which raises 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, its subsidiaries and their promoters.

Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, who was also present during the hearing, said on a lighter note that on the next posting, both Salve and Bhushan can argue from London, while he and the rest of the counsels remain physically present before the Court.

Hearing the counsels, Justice Surya Kant smiled and said "we will not comment on this". 

Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal (ex-SCBA President), appearing in a subsequent matter, called the exchange unfortunate, saying that seasoned lawyers should set a better example for others.

Senior Advocate Dr Menaka Guruswamy, appearing in yet another matter, said that she heard the exchange. She added that while lawyers can take the liberties in their submissions, judges cannot as their words may be misinterpreted on social media. "If your lordships said anything, it would be on social media. So only we can say", she said.

The matter was before a bench of Justices Kant, Ujjal Bhuyan and N Kotiswar Singh. Earlier, the Court had passed strong critical oral remarks against the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) for not entering appearance in the case.

Today, Salve, for Indiabulls, questioned the maintainability of the petition, urging that the petitioner was a stranger resorting to witch-hunting. "Are you saying Court does not have jurisdiction to hear this matter?" Bhushan posed to Salve (who was appearing through VC).

"No, I am saying it should not be heard", Salve replied. He also mentioned that the Reserve Bank of India has filed an affidavit stating that there was nothing wrong with the subject loans. Allaying his concerns, Justice Kant assured Salve that he would be heard on maintainability.

Taking a dig at Salve, Bhushan, however said, "Mr. Salve does not even know what the affidavits are. Mr Salve is sitting in London, he does not even know what the affidavits are". On this, Salve retorted, "Whichever city you are sitting in, you can read an affidavit written in simple English".

Subsequently, Justice Kant noted from the CBI's response that money laundering allegations were prima facie found to be well-placed and the agency stated that ED may continue probe into Indiabulls and its promoters' affairs. In this backdrop, the bench enquired the ED's stand. Additional Solicitor General SV Raju appeared and said, "ED affidavit will show that there is something serious".

At one point, Bhushan highlighted that the Supreme Court recently ordered CBI probe into certain housing companies in Delhi-NCR, where prima facie cognizable offense was found to have been committed and registration of regular cases ordered. "One of the companies is the Vatika Group. Preliminary enquiry finding is that Indiabulls entered into a criminal conspiracy with this Vatika Group, in order to give loans on behalf of homebuyers etc...those loans have been misappropriated, the flats have not been constructed and they have therefore together defrauded 100s, 1000s of people...", he said.

The counsel also claimed that SEBI, in its counter-affidavit, has given a shocking finding and has asked the Ministry of Corporate Affairs to take appropriate action. It was further alleged that MCA compounded more than 200 cases of violations in one day, most of which related to concealing "related party transactions".

On the aspect of loans, Salve countered, "every rupee has come back". Bhushan however continued to assert that one company with share capital of Rs.25000 was given a loan of over Rs.1000 crores and thereafter, Vatika Group transferred money to private companies of the owner of Indiabulls (Sameer Gehlaut). "SEBI has substantiated the allegations we made", he said.

When Bhushan claimed that Gehlaut has fled the country and was living in London, Salve took strong objection. "What do you mean he has fled the country?" "He did not answer the summons issued by CBI in the Yes Bank case", replied Bhushan. Countering him, Salve said, "Oh my God, there is nothing...final chargesheet is filed, there is no mention...".

Ultimately, Justice Kant conveyed to the ASG that the Court would like to see the original MCA records. "We would like to see in how many cases you have been so magnanimous in closing 100s of objections", the judge said.

The bench directed a senior officer of the MCA to remain present on the next date with the original records and called on the ED to clarify its stand with respect to CBI's findings. ED shall also explain in its affidavit the steps taken by it in terms of CBI's affidavit, it ordered.

Case Title: CITIZENS WHISTLE BLOWER FORUM v. UNION OF INDIA, SLP(C) No. 2993/2025

Click Here To Read/Download Order