‘Very Nasty’ Judicial Tempest: Supreme Court Lambasts Registry for Snubbing ED Director Notice

(By Syed Ali Taher Abedi)

New Delhi: 4, May,2026-The Supreme Court of India on Monday expressed sharp displeasure at its Registry for failing to comply with judicial directions to issue notice to the Director of the Enforcement Directorate in the matter of Ayushi Mittal v. State of Rajasthan.

A Bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi came down heavily on the administrative lapse, terming it “very nasty.”

In a strongly worded oral observation, the Chief Justice remarked that officials in the Registry appeared to be acting as though they were “super Chief Justices of India,” underscoring the seriousness of the procedural failure.

The Court noted that despite a clear order passed earlier directing issuance of notice to the ED Director, the same had not been complied with.

The Registry, however, maintained that no such direction existed an assertion the Bench found wholly unacceptable.

“Notice has not been issued to the ED Director stating no such order was passed,” the Court recorded, expressing concern over the apparent misinterpretation of its judicial directions.

Taking a stern view of the lapse, the Bench ordered a fact-finding inquiry to be conducted by the Registrar (Judicial) to ascertain how its March 2026 order was construed in a manner that excluded issuance of notice to the ED. “Let a fact-finding inquiry be undertaken… as to how our March 2026 order does not mean notice to ED,” the Chief Justice directed.

The case itself pertains to serious allegations of financial fraud against the petitioner, her husband, and their company, accused of duping investors of over ₹37,000 crore.

Before the Court, it was submitted that a substantial portion of the amount had been returned, while several hundred crores remain in bank accounts currently frozen by the Enforcement Directorate.

The Bench further indicated that consideration of the petitioner’s bail plea would be contingent upon the filing of a comprehensive affidavit. The affidavit is to disclose details of immovable properties owned by the petitioner, her family members, as well as directors and staff associated with the company.

The matter, earlier addressed by the Court in its order dated March 23, 2026, will now proceed alongside the inquiry into the Registry’s lapse an issue the Court has treated as striking at the core of judicial discipline and administrative accountability within the institution.

“On an oral prayer made by the learned State counsel, the Directorate of Enforcement through its Director, shall be made party respondent. The cause title shall be amended accordingly.it is clarified that this is done only to determine whether all immovable and movable assets of the petitioner her family and close relatives have been attached or not”

This development unfolds against the backdrop of recent concerns articulated by Chief Justice Surya Kant regarding irregularities in the functioning of the Supreme Court of India Registry.

Earlier this year, the Chief Justice had taken strong exception to a petition being listed before a Bench despite the fact that an identical plea had already been dismissed by a three-judge Bench.

Describing the episode as “shocking,” he underscored the seriousness of procedural lapses within the Registry.

The Chief Justice had further indicated that a deeper administrative inquiry into the Registry’s functioning would be warranted, raising pointed questions about accountability and cautioning against any institutional complacency among officials who may perceive their positions as insulated or permanent.