Supreme Court of India. | Photo credit: SUSHIL KUMAR VERMA
In a rare and scathing rebuke to its own administrative office, the Supreme Court on Monday (May 4, 2026) lashed out at the high court Registry, calling its conduct “disgusting” and saying its officials believe they are acting as “super chief justice of India.”
A bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi made the observation while hearing a bail plea filed by Ayushi Mittal alias Ayushi Agarwal, accused of alleged investment fraud to the tune of over Rs 37,000 crore.
The CJI referred to an order passed on March 23 regarding the plea and wondered how the registry officials interpreted that the Court had not notified the Enforcement Directorate and other respondents about the plea.
“The registry is acting in a very unpleasant manner,” the CJI said, adding, “Very unpleasant registry…Everyone sitting here considers himself a super Chief Justice of India.”
The court in its fresh order said, “No notice has been issued to the director of the Education Department stating that no such order was passed. Let the judicial registrar (of the high court) conduct a fact-finding inquiry as to how our order of March 23 does not amount to notice to the Education Department. Let the notice be given to the Enforcement Directorate.”
Petitioner Ayushi Mittal, her husband and their company are accused of orchestrating a massive investment fraud.
While the defense claims that a substantial portion of the funds have been returned to investors, several hundred million rupees remain in bank accounts currently frozen by the ED.
In its March 23 order, the Court had allowed an oral prayer by counsel for the Government of Rajasthan, a party in the case, to make the ED a party in the proceedings.
The purpose was to determine whether all real and personal property belonging to the petitioner and her extended family had been properly seized.
The Court reiterated that it would not consider the merits of the bail application until a “full description” of the assets was provided.
He had directed the legal representative of the petitioner to file a comprehensive affidavit detailing the immovable property owned by the petitioner, her husband, her children and parents and siblings and in-laws.
He also sought details of the assets of the company’s directors, managers and key members of staff.
“Until such full details are provided, we will not consider the bail application on its merits,” the Court had said.
The judicial registrar has been in charge of investigating the administrative failure within the Registry to identify why the court’s previous instructions were ignored.
The Court said it will list the statement sometime in May.
Published – May 4, 2026 01:04 pm IST