The observations were made by a bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi during the hearing of a bail plea of Ayushi Mittal alias Ayushi Agarwal, accused in an alleged investment fraud to the tune of over ₹37,000 crore.
Image: IANS
The Supreme Court on Monday, May 4, lashed out at its Registry and termed its conduct “nasty,” saying that its officials think they are acting as “super Chief Justice of India”.
The observations were made by a bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi while hearing the bail petition of Ayushi Mittal alias Ayushi Agarwal, who is an accused in an alleged investment fraud to the tune of over ₹37,000 crore, PTI reported.
Advertisement
Referring to the March 23 order on the plea, the CJI wondered how the registry officials construed that the bench did not issue notice to the Enforcement Directorate and other respondents on the petition.
Advertisement
“The registry is acting very nasty… Very nasty registry. Each one sitting here considers themselves as super Chief Justice of India,” the CJI said.
In its latest order, the Supreme Court bench said that notice was not 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,” the top court stated.
Ayushi Mittal, her husband, and their company have been accused of orchestrating a major investment fraud.
The defence claims that a substantial portion of the funds was already returned to the investors. However, several hundred crores of rupees still continue to remain in bank accounts currently frozen by the ED.
In March, the apex court had allowed an oral prayer by the counsel for the Rajasthan government, which is a party in the case, to make the ED a party to the proceedings.
It was done to determine whether all movable and immovable assets belonging to the petitioner as well as her extended family had been properly attached.
The bench further reiterated merits of the bail plea would not be considered until a “comprehensive description” of assets is provided.
The matter will be taken up for hearing later this month.
Advertisement
