In a dramatic turn of events, the Supreme Court of India on Monday unleashed a sharp rebuke on its own Registry, criticizing its “nasty” behaviour and accusing officials of acting as though they were “super Chief Justice of India.” The remarks came during the hearing of a high-profile bail plea filed by Ayushi Mittal, one of the prime accused in a multi-billion rupee investment fraud.
The bench, led by Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi, expressed frustration over the Registry’s failure to issue notice to the Enforcement Directorate (ED) in connection with the ongoing investigation, despite clear orders in a previous March ruling. “Very nasty registry,” Chief Justice Kant remarked during the proceedings. “Each one sitting here considers themselves as super Chief Justice of India,” he added, highlighting the apparent arrogance within the court’s administrative system.
At the heart of the issue was an order passed on March 23, which sought to make the ED a party to the case concerning Mittal’s alleged fraudulent activities. However, despite the clear instructions, Registry officials failed to issue notices to the ED, leaving the bench perplexed. “How did the Registry interpret that the bench did not intend to issue notice to the Enforcement Directorate?” questioned the Chief Justice.
In its latest ruling, the bench called for a fact-finding inquiry into the administrative lapse. It directed the Registrar Judicial to investigate how the March 23 order had been misconstrued and why the ED had not been notified. The court ordered that the notice be promptly served to the Enforcement Directorate, underscoring the gravity of the situation.
Ayushi Mittal, along with her husband and their company, is accused of masterminding a massive investment fraud amounting to over Rs 37,000 crore. The accused, along with several others, allegedly swindled thousands of investors, leading to the freezing of substantial assets by the ED, which is investigating the matter.
While Mittal’s defence claims that a significant portion of the funds has been returned to investors, reports suggest that several hundred crores are still locked in frozen bank accounts. The court, however, has made it clear that it will not entertain the bail plea until a comprehensive affidavit is submitted, detailing the assets of Mittal, her family, and company staff. “Until such complete details are provided, we will not consider the plea for bail on its merits,” the bench asserted.
Amid the ongoing legal battle, the bench has tasked the Registrar Judicial with an inquiry into the apparent administrative oversight that led to the Registry’s failure to follow through on the March 23 order. The court’s frustration points to a broader issue of accountability within the judicial system, particularly when dealing with high-profile cases.
