New Delhi: The Supreme Court has declined to entertain a public interest litigation seeking an investigation into an alleged ARC-facilitated banking fraud concerning JKM Infra Projects Limited, while clarifying that its decision does not prevent the Directorate of Enforcement, the Serious Fraud Investigation Office, the Central Bureau of Investigation and the Reserve Bank of India from taking cognizance of the allegations.
A Bench of the Chief Justice, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohana passed the order on 24.09.2026 in Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 230/2026, titled Prateeksha & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. The petition, filed under Article 32 of the Constitution, sought directions to various investigating agencies and statutory authorities to probe the alleged fraud.
At the outset, senior counsel appearing for the contesting respondents, in unanimity, objected to the maintainability of the PIL, alleging that it had been filed at the instance of respondent No. 18. By an order dated 07.09.2026, the Court had therefore directed the petitioners to file an affidavit disclosing their complete particulars and bona fides, as well as the source of the information and documents on which the petition was based. The petitioners filed a joint affidavit in compliance.
Having perused the affidavit, the Bench said that, keeping in view the nature of the proceedings and the material on record, it was not inclined to entertain the PIL. It clarified that its decision should not be construed as "casting any aspersion on the bona fides of the petitioners", whom it described as young members of the Bar. The Court expressed confidence that, with more experience at the Bar, they would have ample opportunities to raise issues of genuine public importance through appropriate proceedings.
The writ petition was accordingly dismissed.
The Bench added that the non-entertainment of the petition would not preclude the Directorate of Enforcement, the Serious Fraud Investigation Office, the Central Bureau of Investigation and the Reserve Bank of India from taking cognizance of the allegations concerning the alleged banking fraud. It also said that any public-spirited person would be at liberty to assist these agencies in accordance with law.
The Court further clarified that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter, and disposed of pending applications, if any.
Appearances:
For the Petitioners: Mr. Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay, Mr. Ashwani Kumar Dubey (AOR), Mr. A.K. Upadhyay, Mr. Nikhil Upadhyay and Mr. Shorya Dasgupta, Advocates.
For the Respondents: Mr. R. Venkataramani, Attorney General for India; Mr. Tushar Mehta, Solicitor General; Mr. K.M. Nataraj, A.S.G.; Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, Mr. Shyam Divan, Mr. Pratap Venugopal, Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Mr. Ranjit Kumar, Mr. Amar Dave and Mr. Ramesh Babu M.R., Senior Advocates, along with other counsel.
Case Title: Prateeksha & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors., Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 230 of 2026
