Back
The on Friday dismissed a filed by former journalist Ketan Tirodkar, which sought a comprehensive investigation into alleged overseas fund flows into the Indian equity market, including transactions involving entities. The bench, comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana, refused to entertain the petition primarily on , observing that the petitioner had an available before the .
The court noted that similar petitions were already pending before the and that the petitioner had withdrawn proceedings there. “Why you can’t go to High Court, instead of coming here. What prevents you go to the High Court? The same relief you could seek from the High Court also,” the Chief Justice remarked at the outset. When counsel for the petitioner submitted that the matter involved issues of national importance and that the petition had been withdrawn from the High Court, the bench pressed for an explanation. “Why you have withdrawn, this is what we want to know. When a remedy which is available to you, you don’t want to avail and a remedy which you should ordinarily come after availing the High Court. Therefore we want to know,” the court said.
The petition, filed by Tirodkar, an ex-journalist, claimed that he had been studying funds allegedly flowing into Indian equities for 15 years and had obtained documents from overseas company registries and Indian authorities. It alleged that companies registered in Singapore, Cyprus, the United Kingdom, Dubai, Mauritius, and other jurisdictions were being used to route and reroute funds to and from India, with specific references to transactions involving entities and overseas investment entities. The sought status reports from the and the , statements from relevant persons through the enforcement wings of the , , the , and the . It also demanded a status report from the on beneficiaries and sources of investment funds, and disclosure from the of public sector bank exposure exceeding ₹100 crore per borrower, including defaults and securities. The petition further sought disclosure of loans written off by , citing a disclosure of ₹17,495 crore in written-off loans, as well as details of advances against share-pledge agreements.
Among its more far-reaching prayers, the requested preliminary inquiries by the , the , and the into the information and documents relied upon. It also asked authorities to examine companies sharing common addresses, email addresses, and directors, and to disclose details of an investigation being conducted by the . The petition further sought of a study group headed by a retired Supreme Court judge to examine shortcomings in the functioning of concerned agencies and suggest reforms.
Petitioner’s Argument on National Importance Falls Flat
Counsel for the petitioner, , argued that the petition raised issues of great national significance concerning Indian revenue and sought additional time to explain how it differed from similar petitions before the . “Your Lordships, it is about the Indian revenue. It is a matter of national interest, so we are approaching here,” she submitted. She also referred to the involvement of central agencies and sought time to place relevant pleadings and orders on record, noting that an order had been uploaded only the previous evening. However, the bench remained unconvinced. “Nothing is involved except that you have to file the in the High Court, that’s all. Instead of coming here…” the Chief Justice observed.
The court’s firm stance underscored the well-established principle that litigants must exhaust before approaching the Supreme Court directly under . While the court has discretion to entertain a in involving issues of grave public importance, the bench found no such ground made out in this case. The fact that the petitioner had already withdrawn proceedings from the without any apparent justification weighed heavily against granting any indulgence.
Liberty to Approach the
Ultimately, the Supreme Court was not inclined to entertain the and dismissed it with to approach the jurisdictional high court. This means Tirodkar can file a fresh petition before the , which is already seized of similar matters. The court’s order effectively leaves the substantive allegations—regarding overseas fund flows, Adani transactions, and the role of regulatory bodies—to be examined by the High Court in the first instance. Legal experts note that this outcome reinforces the importance of the and discourages by litigants who bypass lower courts.
For now, the petitioner must decide whether to revive the matter before the or pursue other avenues. The Supreme Court’s refusal to entertain the does not amount to a ruling of the allegations; it simply directs the petitioner to the appropriate forum. The next steps will likely involve filing a fresh petition before the , which will then decide whether to entertain the matter on its own merits.
