SC slams registry for not issuing ED notice, calls conduct ‘nasty’
text_fields
New Delhi: In a rare and sharp criticism of its own administrative machinery, the Supreme Court on Monday pulled up its Registry, describing its conduct as “nasty” and remarking that officials appeared to be acting like “super Chief Justice of India”.
A bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi made the strong observations while hearing a bail plea filed by Ayushi Mittal, also known as Ayushi Agarwal, an accused in an alleged investment fraud exceeding ₹37,000 crore.
Referring to its order dated March 23, the Chief Justice questioned how Registry officials had interpreted the direction as not issuing notice to the Enforcement Directorate (ED) and other respondents.
“The Registry is acting very nasty… Each one sitting here considers themselves as super Chief Justice of India,” the bench observed.
The court said in its fresh order that notice had not been issued to the ED Director on the premise that no such direction existed. It therefore ordered a fact-finding inquiry by the Registrar (Judicial) of the apex court to determine how the March 23 order was not treated as a notice to the ED, and directed that notice be served to the Enforcement Directorate.
The case relates to allegations that Ayushi Mittal, her husband, and their company were involved in a large-scale investment fraud. While the defence claims a significant portion of funds was returned to investors, several hundred crores remain in bank accounts that have been frozen by the ED.
In its March 23 order, the bench had allowed an oral request by counsel for the Rajasthan government—already a party in the case—to implead the ED, in order to examine whether all movable and immovable assets linked to the accused and her extended family had been properly attached.
The court had also insisted on a comprehensive disclosure of assets before considering the bail plea on merits. It directed the petitioner’s counsel to file an exhaustive affidavit detailing immovable properties of the accused, her husband, children, parents, siblings, in-laws, as well as assets of company directors, managers, and key staff.
Reiterating its stance, the bench said it would not examine the bail plea until a “comprehensive description” of assets is placed on record.
The Registrar (Judicial) has been tasked with probing the administrative lapse within the Registry to ascertain why the court’s earlier directions were not followed. The matter is likely to be listed in May.
With PTI inputs