Delhi High Court Records ED’s Statement To Withdraw Press Release Against FIITJEE Over Alleged ₹206 Crore Fraud

May 6, 2026 : The Delhi High Court has recorded the statement made by the Directorate of Enforcement that it will take appropriate steps to withdraw its press release alleging large-scale fraud by coaching institute FIITJEE Limited and claiming recovery of ₹206 crore as proceeds of crime.

Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav passed the order on May 6 while hearing a writ petition filed by FIITJEE and its founders seeking quashing of the Enforcement Directorate’s press release dated April 26. The Court disposed of the plea after ED’s counsel informed the Court that the department would withdraw the press release from its website within seven days.

The Court recorded in its order:

“Mr. Sharma, learned counsel for respondent- Directorate of Enforcement, on instructions, submits that the Department shall take appropriate steps to withdraw the Press Release (PR) in question from the website without being any orders on the merits or conformity of the PR with Office Memorandum, 2010 or otherwise.”

The order further noted that, in view of the statement made by the ED, the petition had become infructuous and was accordingly disposed of. The Court clarified that all rights and contentions of the parties were left open.

During an earlier hearing on March 18, the High Court had prima facie observed that the ED’s press release appeared to cast “judgmental aspersions” against FIITJEE. The Court had also referred to the 2010 Office Memorandum issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs, which advises investigating agencies against making opinionated or judgmental statements while briefing the media.

The ED’s now-withdrawn press release had alleged that FIITJEE collected ₹206 crore as proceeds of crime without rendering services and claimed that incriminating documents revealed a systematic scheme to siphon funds.

FIITJEE argued before the Court that the press release was issued on the basis of a preliminary analysis report before any show-cause notice had been served upon it. The institute contended that the release triggered a “media trial” and caused severe reputational and commercial damage.

According to FIITJEE, the fallout included withdrawal of franchisees, refusal of loans by banks, distancing by investors, demoralisation of employees, and loss of trust among students, thereby damaging the institution’s goodwill built over decades.

Senior Advocate Jayant Mehta appeared for FIITJEE along with advocates Shiv Sapra, Aviral Tripathi, Vanshay Kaul, Malak Bhatt, Sudhir Katpalia, Dilip Arya, Sidhika Nagrath, Saahil Bahety and Chhavi Tokas.

Advocates Anupam S. Sharma, Harpreet Kalsi, Vashishth Rao, Abhiyant Singh, Amisha P. Dash and Mayank Tyagi appeared for the Enforcement Directorate.

Case Reference : W.P.(C) 14196/2025 & CM APPL. 58332/2025, 61270/2025, 65416/2025, 71682/2025 and 71713/2025 – FIITJEE Limited & Ors. v. Directorate of Enforcement & Ors. | Counsels for Petitioners: Senior Advocate Jayant Mehta with Shiv Sapra, Aviral Tripathi, Vanshay Kaul, Malak Bhatt, Sudhir Katpalia, Dilip Arya, Sidhika Nagrath, Saahil Bahety and Chhavi Tokas, Advocates | Counsels for Respondents: Anupam S. Sharma with Harpreet Kalsi, Vashishth Rao, Abhiyant Singh, Amisha P. Dash and Mayank Tyagi, Advocates for ED.