In a rare and scathing rebuke of its own administrative wing, the Supreme Court on Monday lashed out at the apex court Registry, accusing officials of overstepping their authority and behaving as if they were the “super Chief Justice of India.”
A Bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi expressed deep displeasure over the Registry’s failure to process a judicial order concerning a massive ₹37,000 crore investment fraud case. The court has now ordered a formal fact-finding inquiry to investigate the administrative lapse.
‘Super Chief Justice’ Remarks
The confrontation arose during the hearing of a bail plea filed by Ayushi Mittal (alias Ayushi Agarwal), an accused in a staggering ₹37,000 crore investment scam. The Bench noted that despite an order passed on March 23, the Registry had failed to issue a notice to the Enforcement Directorate (ED).
“The registry is acting very nasty,” Chief Justice Surya Kant observed during the proceedings. “Very nasty registry… Each one sitting here considers themselves as super Chief Justice of India.”
The CJI questioned how administrative officials could unilaterally construe that the Bench had not issued a notice to the ED and other respondents, effectively stalling the judicial process.
Background of the ₹37,000 Crore Fraud
The petitioner, Ayushi Mittal, along with her husband and their company, stands accused of orchestrating a massive financial fraud. While the defense argues that a significant portion of the funds has been returned to investors, the ED has currently frozen several hundred crores of rupees held in various bank accounts.
In the previous hearing on March 23, the Court had allowed an oral prayer by the Rajasthan Government to implead the ED as a party. The objective was to verify whether all movable and immovable assets belonging to the petitioner and her extended family had been properly attached.
Bail Contingent on Full Asset Disclosure
The Bench reiterated its firm stance that the merits of the bail plea would not be considered until a “comprehensive description” of all assets is provided.
The Court has directed the petitioner’s legal representative to file an exhaustive affidavit detailing the immovable properties of:
- The petitioner and her husband.
- Their children and parents.
- Their siblings and parents-in-law.
- Company directors, managers, and key staff members.
“Until such complete details are provided, we will not consider the plea for bail on its merits,” the Bench stated.
Inquiry Ordered
To address the internal breakdown, the Supreme Court has tasked the Registrar Judicial with conducting an inquiry into how the March 23 order was misinterpreted or ignored. The Bench clarified in its fresh order that notice must be served to the Director of the Enforcement Directorate immediately.
The matter is scheduled to be listed again later in May, following the submission of the required affidavits and the findings of the internal inquiry.
