The Supreme Court emphasized its reluctance to direct arrests, prioritizing evidence collection and witness protection. While monitoring investigations, the bench declined to comment on the merits of the Anil Ambani Group (ADAG) case, citing past collateral damage to reputations. The CBI has filed nine FIRs totaling Rs 27,337 crore against ADAG entities.
NEW DELHI: A bench of CJI Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi said, “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 …”“While monitoring investigations, we do not express any opinion on correctness of arrest or non-arrest of any person. For effective investigation, the agencies are best suited to determine how to proceed…” CJI Kant said.The bench turned down ADAG’s plea to insert a line in the order to convey that SC had not formed an opinion on the merits of the case and that the court monitoring the probe does not mean the opposite.SC said continuous mandamus jurisprudence devised during monitoring of CBI probe into the Jain-Hawala scam in the Vineet Narain case in the 1990s is a principle of which the court should be proud of. However, the observations made during the court monitoring of investigations caused immense collateral damage to the reputations of many. “The consequences were devastating. That is why we are not commenting on the investigations,” Supreme Court clarified. Appearing for CBI, solicitor general Tushar Mehta said CBI has so far registered nine FIRs against different ADAG entities and that in seven FIRs, the total sum involved is Rs 27,337 crore. He narrated the broad contours of the investigations and the progress made, and said four people have been arrested and 31 lookout circulars issued.When Bhushan persisted with his complaint of the agencies not arresting Anil Ambani, the latter’s counsel Kapil Sibal said the only agenda seems to be to get Anil Ambani arrested. “He has cooperated with the investigation and is not a flight risk,” he said.Senior advocate Shyam Divan, for ADAG, said attachment orders against two companies — Reliance Power and Reliance Infra — have caused loss of reputation to the two. Sibal and Divan repeatedly tried to persuade the bench to write one line in the order — “SC has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case …” The bench did not accept Sibal’s request.
