Authority: Supreme Court of India

Order Date: 24-09-2026

Case Overview

  • Petition: Writ Petition(s) (Criminal) No(s). 230/2026 filed by Prateeksha & Ors. (petitioners) against Union of India & Ors. (respondents).
  • Nature of Petition: Filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India as a public‑interest litigation seeking a direction to various investigating agencies/statutory authorities to investigate an alleged ARC‑facilitated banking fraud concerning JKM Infra Projects Limited.
  • Coram: Hon'ble Chief Justice, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Joymalya Bagchi, Hon'ble Mrs. Justice V. Mohana.
  • Counsel for Petitioners: Mr. Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay, Adv.; Mr. Ashwani Kumar Dubey, AOR; Mr. A.K. Upadhyay, Adv.; Mr. Nikhil Upadhyay, Adv.; Mr. Shorya Dasgupta, Adv.
  • Counsel for Respondents: Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, Sr. Adv.; Mr. Shyam Divan, Sr. Adv.; Mr. Aayush Agarwala, Adv.; Mr. Anuj P. Agarwala, Adv.; Mr. Gaurav Verma, Adv.; Ms. Mukti Heliwal, Adv.; M/s. PBA Legal, AOR; and a long roster of senior government counsel including the Attorney General, Solicitor General and Additional Solicitors General.
  • Procedural History: The respondents unanimously objected to the maintainability of the PIL, alleging it was filed at the instance of respondent No. 18. Consequently, the Court, by order dated 07.09.2026, directed the petitioners to file an affidavit disclosing their complete particulars, bona fides, and the source of information and documents on which the petition was based.
  • Affidavit: The petitioners complied by filing a joint affidavit furnishing the information sought.

Final Outcome

  • The Court, after perusing the affidavit and considering the nature of the proceedings, decided not to entertain the PIL, stating that the petition does not merit consideration at this stage.
  • The dismissal does not constitute any aspersion on the bona fides of the petitioners, who are described as young members of the Bar, and the Court expressed confidence that they will have future opportunities to raise genuine public‑interest issues.
  • The petition is dismissed.
  • The Court clarified that the non‑entertainment of the petition will not preclude the Directorate of Enforcement, Serious Fraud Investigation Office, Central Bureau of Investigation, and the Reserve Bank of India from taking cognizance of the alleged banking fraud.
  • No opinion was expressed on the merits of the alleged fraud.
  • All pending applications, if any, are also disposed of.

Topics: Banking Fraud, Judicial Procedure