The Delhi High Court has refused to order SFIO Investigation Disclosure relating to the Ministry of Corporate Affairs’ investigation into Reliance Home Finance Limited, Reliance Communications Limited, and other Anil Ambani group companies. Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma held that the Mandke Foundation has no enforceable right to obtain the investigation orders or the supporting material while the probe remains at a preliminary stage. The Court concluded that revealing these records could affect the ongoing investigation.
Background of the Investigation
The case forms part of a wider regulatory and criminal investigation involving several Anil Ambani group companies. The Ministry of Corporate Affairs first examined the companies’ affairs and found prima facie evidence of fund diversion. It later directed the Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO) to conduct a detailed investigation under Section 212 of the Companies Act, 2013.
Authorities have also examined loans raised by Reliance Communications and related entities between 2010 and 2012. Several banks later classified those accounts as fraudulent. The Enforcement Directorate has conducted a parallel investigation and frozen assets worth about ₹1.01 billion. The CBI has also registered separate cases, including one involving an alleged wrongful loss of more than ₹2,220 crore to Bank of Baroda.
During the investigation, the SFIO issued notices to entities connected with the group, including the Mandke Foundation. It directed the Foundation to produce financial records from FY 2008-09 to FY 2025-26. According to the SFIO, financial analysis showed that the Foundation had direct or indirect financial dealings with the companies under investigation.
Foundation’s Arguments
The Mandke Foundation stated that it first became aware of the Ministry’s investigation through the SFIO notice. Although it agreed to cooperate, it requested copies of the Ministry’s investigation orders to understand the basis and scope of the inquiry.
The Foundation claimed that the SFIO neither supplied the requested documents nor replied to its request. Instead, it issued summons to the Foundation’s current and former directors. The Foundation approached the Delhi High Court seeking copies of the investigation orders and related material. It did not challenge the investigation itself.
Government’s Stand
The Union Government and the SFIO opposed the petition. They argued that the investigation remained at an early stage. According to them, disclosing the investigation orders or supporting material could compromise the ongoing probe.
They also informed the Court that connected proceedings arising from the same investigation were pending before the Bombay High Court. Premature disclosure, they argued, could adversely affect those proceedings as well.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court observed that the Foundation had not challenged the investigation. It had only sought disclosure of the investigation orders and supporting material.
The Court noted that the SFIO notice already informed the Foundation about the Central Government’s investigation into Reliance Home Finance Limited and other companies. The notice also explained that financial analysis had revealed transactions between the Foundation and those companies. Therefore, the Foundation already knew why the authorities sought its records.
The Court also noted that the Foundation had not supplied the requested information despite receiving both the notice and a reminder. It held that the summons issued to the Foundation’s directors followed their continued non-compliance and did not amount to an unexplained escalation.
Directions
After considering the government’s objections, the Court found no reason to order disclosure at this stage. It accepted that disclosure could prejudice the investigation and connected proceedings before the Bombay High Court.
Accordingly, the Court dismissed the writ petition. However, it clarified that the Foundation remains free to pursue appropriate legal remedies if any future action adversely affects its rights.
Significance
The judgment on SFIO Investigation Disclosure reinforces that entities participating in a statutory investigation cannot insist on receiving investigation orders or supporting material before complying with official notices. The Court emphasized that authorities may preserve confidentiality while investigations remain ongoing.
The ruling also highlights the judiciary’s reluctance to interfere with complex fraud investigations involving multiple companies and parallel proceedings. At the same time, it preserves the Foundation’s right to challenge any future action through appropriate legal remedies.
