New Delhi: The Delhi High Court has recorded on May 6, 2026, noting that the Enforcement Directorate (ED) has unconditionally withdrawn the Press Release dated April 26 2025, raising allegations against FIITJEE and its Directors and Officers.
The Petitioners (FIITJEE) had challenged the now impugned, Press Release, issued by the ED’s Lucknow Zonal Office on April 26, 2025, after searches were conducted at the Noida and Delhi offices of FIITJEE and residences of certain Directors and Officers.
The unconditional withdrawal of the impugned Press Release vindicates the consistent stand of FIITJEE and its Directors that the allegations were baseless and unsupported by evidence.
The Petitioners contended that the Press Release was malicious, defamatory and based on illegal and gross assumptions, containing various presumptions and accusations without any supporting justification or evidence. It was further pointed out that the Press Release was based on a “Preliminary Analysis Report”, no such report existed.
The Petitioners also submitted before the Court that the now impugned Press Release was in violation of the Office Memorandum dated April 1 2010 issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA), Government of India.
On March 18, 2026, the Delhi High Court heard arguments at length and prima facie noted that the impugned Press Release was in contravention and violation of the aforesaid Office Memorandum.
Thereafter, counsel for the respondent sought time to seek instructions on whether they would revise the Press Release or have the matter adjudicated on merits. Notably, despite claiming that the Press Release was based on preliminary analysis of seized material, the respondent admitted before the Hon’ble Court that no such Preliminary Analysis Report existed and failed to prima facie substantiate the allegations.
Subsequently, on May 6, 2026, the Delhi High Court noted that counsel for the respondent had instructions to unconditionally withdraw the impugned Press Release. The Court also orally remarked during the hearing that the respondent, by withdrawing the Press Release, had averted serious ramifications that could have arisen had the Court been constrained to pass an order on the merits of the matter.