The Supreme Court has delivered a sharp rebuke to India’s top investigative agencies, questioning why allegations of financial misconduct against Indiabulls Housing Finance Limited, now renamed Sammaan Capital Limited have not been properly examined. The court has now stepped in, directing the heads of the CBI, SEBI, SFIO and the Enforcement Directorate to meet and decide how to move the matter forward.
A bench of Justices Surya Kant, Ujjal Bhuyan and N Kotiswar Singh voiced frustration at what it described as an unusually “cool” and passive approach by the CBI. The judges said they had “never seen such a friendly attitude” in a case involving serious allegations about public money. The court made it clear that the closure of earlier proceedings by the Ministry of Corporate Affairs (MCA) cannot be used as an excuse to avoid deeper investigation.
The case stems from a petition filed by Citizens Whistle Blower Forum, represented by advocate Prashant Bhushan, accusing the erstwhile promoters of Indiabulls of funnelling money through dubious loans. The petition claims that loans were routed to companies linked to large corporate groups, which then allegedly circulated funds back to entities connected with Indiabulls promoters to inflate their personal wealth.
The court was especially concerned about the lack of action from multiple agencies. It asked the Delhi Police Commissioner to produce original records of complaints the ED had lodged, as well as the reasoning behind the Economic Offences Wing’s refusal to investigate. A senior EOW official must appear before the bench at the next hearing on December 17.
The judges emphasised that even if only a fraction of the allegations are accurate, the transactions under scrutiny raise enough suspicion to warrant an FIR. Registering a case, the bench said, would empower all investigating agencies. “What really is preventing the authorities?” the court asked, questioning why the MCA closed the matter and suggesting that such a move undermines public trust.
The petitioners alleged that former promoter Sameer Gehlaut had left the country and was living in London. Senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, representing Gehlaut, countered that his client stepped away from the company in 2022–23 and no longer holds any shares. The company, now operating as Sammaan Capital, told the court through senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi that the allegations were unfounded and had already been examined by several regulators without any wrongdoing being established.
The court, however, made it clear that it was not commenting on the truth of the allegations. Its concern, it said, was the apparent unwillingness of agencies to even begin a proper investigation.
SEBI faced some of the strongest criticism. When its counsel argued that the regulator lacked jurisdiction to investigate certain aspects of the case, Justice Kant pointed out what he called “double standards.” He noted that SEBI claims exclusive authority when dealing with asset sales but becomes reluctant when asked to investigate possible violations. The court even cited an instance where a property valued at Rs 30 crore was allegedly auctioned for just Rs 2 lakh, implying weak oversight.
The bench urged SEBI to perform its statutory duties when the court assigns responsibility. “Why are your officers getting a salary if you do not have power?” Justice Kant remarked.
The Supreme Court asked the CBI director to file an affidavit outlining the discussions held among the agencies after the ordered meeting. The next hearing will likely determine whether the matter moves toward a coordinated probe or continues to languish in bureaucratic limbo.
For now, the court’s intervention signals a clear message: allegations involving public money, however complex, cannot be left in administrative grey zones. With multiple regulators having touched the matter at various points but none taking full ownership, the court’s push may become the turning point in a case that has raised wider concerns about accountability within India’s financial regulatory ecosystem.
