BackLAW
We do not express opinion on correctness of arrest or non-arrest: SC
The Supreme Court signaled a cautious approach to arrests in the Anil Ambani Group probe, stressing evidence collection and witness protection while monitoring CBI investigations. It declined to comment on the merits of the case or to insert a line affirming lack of opinion on merits. The CBI reported nine FIRs totaling Rs 27,337 crore against ADAG entities, with four arrests and 31 lookout circulars issued.
Why It Matters
This ruling shows how the judiciary balances enforcement actions with safeguarding reputations during sensitive investigations, while maintaining oversight over the probe into the ADAG group by the CBI.
Timeline
8 Events
May 8, 2026 – ADAG representation on reputational harm; plea for a line
May 8, 2026
Senior advocate Shyam Divan, for ADAG, cited attachment orders against Reliance Power and Reliance Infra as causing reputational loss; Sibal and Divan pressed to insert the line that the SC has not expressed any opinion on merits, but the bench did not accept.
May 8, 2026 – Anil Ambani arrest discussion
May 8, 2026
When Bhushan pressed that agencies were not arresting Anil Ambani, his counsel Kapil Sibal argued the agenda seems to be to arrest him, stating that Ambani has cooperated with the investigation and is not a flight risk.
May 8, 2026 – CBI progress update (FIRs, amounts, arrests, lookout notices)
May 8, 2026
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta reported that the CBI has registered nine FIRs against different ADAG entities; in seven FIRs, the total sum involved is Rs 27,337 crore; four people have been arrested and 31 lookout circulars issued.
May 8, 2026 – Reference to Vineet Narain and collateral damage
May 8, 2026
The Court states that continuous mandamus jurisprudence from Vineet Narain is a principle to be proud of, but observations during monitoring caused collateral damage to reputations; the consequences were devastating, and therefore the Court says it will not be commenting on investigations.
May 8, 2026 – ADAG plea to insert line declined
May 8, 2026
ADAG sought to insert a line in the order stating that the SC had not formed an opinion on the merits; the bench did not accept the plea.
May 8, 2026 – Court will monitor investigations but not express opinions on merits
May 8, 2026
The bench adds that while monitoring investigations, it does not express any opinion on the correctness of arrest or non-arrest of any person, and that for effective investigation, the agencies are best suited to determine how to proceed.
May 8, 2026 – SC reiterates reluctance to direct arrests
May 8, 2026
A bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi states: "SC has repeatedly said it will be extremely shy of directing arrest of any individual. Importance must be given to collection and preservation of evidence and protection to witnesses."
Background: Vineet Narain case and continuous mandamus jurisprudence
1997
The article references continuous mandamus jurisprudence developed during the monitoring of the CBI probe into the Jain-Hawala scam in the Vineet Narain case in the 1990s. It notes the principle is one the court should be proud of, but acknowledges that observations during monitoring caused collateral damage to reputations, leading to a stance of not commenting on investigations.