NE LEGAL BUREAU
NEW DELHI, MAY 4
In an extraordinary and unusually sharp rebuke of its own administrative machinery, the Supreme Court on Monday came down heavily on the apex court Registry, describing its conduct as “nasty” and observing that its officials appeared to function like “super Chief Justice of India”.
- Bench pulls up Registry over “misreading” of March 23 order; orders fact-finding probe by Registrar (Judicial)
- Court terms conduct “very nasty”, says officials behaving like “super Chief Justice of India”
- Bail plea in alleged massive investment fraud kept on hold pending full asset disclosure
A bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi made the strong remarks while hearing a bail plea filed by Ayushi Mittal alias Ayushi Agarwal, an accused in an alleged investment fraud exceeding ₹37,000 crore.
The bench took serious exception to what it termed a misinterpretation of its earlier order dated March 23.
“The registry is acting very nasty,” the Chief Justice said, adding, “Very nasty registry… Each one sitting here considers themselves as super Chief Justice of India.”
The court was particularly irked that its earlier direction was construed as not issuing notice to the Enforcement Directorate (ED), despite indications to the contrary.
The bench noted in its fresh order:
“Notice has not been issued to the ED director stating no such order was passed. Let a fact-finding inquiry be undertaken by the registrar judicial (of the apex court) as to how our March 23 order does not mean notice to the ED. Let notice be served to the Directorate of Enforcement.”
Fraud allegations, frozen assets and bail roadblock
The petitioner, Ayushi Mittal, along with her husband and their company, has been accused of orchestrating a large-scale investment fraud. While the defence claims that a significant portion of funds was returned to investors, several hundred crores remain frozen in bank accounts under the control of the Enforcement Directorate.
The March 23 order had also permitted an oral request by counsel for the Rajasthan government to implead the ED, with the objective of verifying whether movable and immovable assets belonging to the accused and their extended family had been properly attached.
The court reiterated its firm stance that it would not examine the merits of the bail plea unless there was full transparency regarding assets.
“Until such complete details are provided, we will not consider the plea for bail on its merits,” the bench had earlier stated.
Court demands full asset disclosure before bail consideration
The Supreme Court directed the petitioner’s counsel to file a comprehensive affidavit detailing immovable and movable assets of the accused, her family members—including spouse, children, parents, siblings, and in-laws—as well as company directors, managers, and key personnel.
The Registrar (Judicial) has now been tasked with conducting a fact-finding inquiry into the administrative lapse within the Registry to determine why the court’s earlier instructions were not correctly implemented.
The bench also indicated that the matter will be listed again in May for further hearing.
