New Delhi, Feb 19 (NationPress) Prominent industrialist Anil D. Ambani has submitted a compliance affidavit to the Supreme Court, affirming his commitment not to leave the country without obtaining prior permission from the apex court. This submission is part of an ongoing investigation related to alleged extensive bank loan frauds concerning Reliance Communications Ltd (RCOM) and its associated entities.

The affidavit is associated with a pending public interest litigation (PIL) that seeks a court-monitored investigation into claims that over Rs 1.50 lakh crore of debt linked to the Ambani-led RCOM group has been written off, with allegations that funds were misappropriated through various shell companies.

This document formally reaffirms an earlier oral commitment made on February 4 by senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, who represented Ambani, assuring the Supreme Court that he would not leave India without its permission.

“Through this affidavit, I formally reaffirm and document this statement as an undertaking before this Hon’ble Court,” Ambani noted.

Furthermore, he stated under oath, “I have not departed from India since July 2025, following the commencement of the current investigations, and have no plans or intention to travel abroad.”

Ambani added that should the need for foreign travel arise, he would seek prior leave and consent from the Supreme Court before proceeding.

Stressing that he poses no flight risk, the affidavit asserts: “Given the aforementioned behavior, commitments, and ongoing cooperation, it is clear that I am not a flight risk and have no intention to evade the law.”

Ambani also emphasized his full cooperation with investigative authorities. “I have been fully cooperating with the investigating agencies regarding the ongoing inquiries and continue to provide complete assistance,” he stated in the affidavit.

In relation to the investigation under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, he mentioned that assessments under Section 50 of the PMLA are currently underway during the proceedings before the Supreme Court.

“I have been summoned by the Directorate of Enforcement to appear on 26.02.2025, and I commit to participating in the investigation on that date,” the affidavit stated, committing to fully cooperate with the authorities while “preventing any impression of evasion or selective fact presentation.”

Clarifying his position in the scrutinized group companies, Ambani asserted: “I respectfully clarify that my involvement in the relevant companies has been solely as a Non-Executive Director, and I was not engaged in daily management or operational decisions.”

In the affidavit dated February 18, he expressed: “This affidavit is being submitted to ensure clarity, completeness, and procedural transparency in the judicial record, intending that this Hon’ble Court is aware of the broader issues stemming from the same factual circumstances.”

Ambani’s commitment is set against the backdrop of the Supreme Court’s February 4 directive, where a bench led by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant raised concerns regarding an “unexplained delay” by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) and the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) in investigating alleged bank loan frauds involving public funds amounting to approximately Rs 40,000 crore.

The CJI Kant-led bench instructed the ED to form a Special Investigation Team (SIT) comprising senior officers and urged both central agencies to drive the investigation to a “logical conclusion” promptly, making it clear that no harsh or coercive measures would be enacted at that time.

During the hearing, concerns were raised by advocate Prashant Bhushan regarding the possibility of the key accused fleeing the country before the investigation concluded, leading to a documented undertaking not to travel abroad without the Supreme Court’s permission.

The Supreme Court also ordered the ED and the CBI to submit detailed status reports on their investigative progress and questioned why only a single FIR had been lodged despite multiple complaints from lenders, noting that each complaint represented a distinct transaction requiring independent scrutiny.