CLAT PG Current Affairs — 22 September 2026

The Supreme Court dismissed the Centre's review petition challenging its earlier ruling that private individuals can file complaints in Companies Act fraud cases under Section 212(6). The Court affirmed that while the government retains prosecutorial primacy, it may authorise an officer through a general or special written order to institute such complaints. The ruling preserves the earlier judgment's balance: SFIO powers are not exclusive, and private complainants retain standing in corporate fraud matters.

Section 212 of the Companies Act, 2013 governs SFIO investigations into fraud. Sub-section (6) specifically deals with who may institute a complaint once an SFIO investigation report is filed. The Centre had argued that only a government-authorised officer could file such a complaint, effectively blocking private complainants from initiating proceedings in SFIO-investigated fraud cases.

The Supreme Court's original verdict — now upheld after the review dismissal — clarified two things. First, the Central Government can authorise an officer via a general or special written order, meaning the authorisation need not be case-specific. Second, private complaints are not entirely foreclosed; Section 212(6) does not create an absolute government monopoly over prosecution in fraud cases investigated by SFIO.

This matters for CLAT PG because the examiner has tested Section 212 repeatedly, particularly around the scope of SFIO powers, who can file complaints, time limits for investigation, and the consequence of strict versus liberal interpretation of procedural phrases. The 2021 CLAT PG question on SFIO v. Rahul Modi directly tested what a strict reading of 'within such period as may be specified in the order' would mean — the same analytical framework now applies to the phrase 'authorised officer' under Section 212(6).

The distinction being tested here is between SFIO's investigative exclusivity (which exists once investigation is assigned) and prosecutorial exclusivity (which does not fully exist — private complainants retain standing). This contrast is precisely the kind of nuanced statutory distinction CLAT PG examiners favour.

The Supreme Court held that the Central Government can authorise any officer, not just the SFIO Director, to file complaints for corporate fraud under the Companies Act, 2013. The ruling clarifies Section 212(14), which grants the Central Government discretion to designate an authorised officer for filing such complaints. This widens the prosecutorial mechanism beyond the SFIO Director and settles a contested interpretation about who holds standing to initiate fraud proceedings under the Act.

Section 212 of the Companies Act, 2013 governs investigations by the Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO). Sub-section (14) provides that the Central Government may authorise any officer to file a complaint in court upon completion of investigation. The critical dispute before the Supreme Court was whether only the SFIO Director had this authority, or whether the Central Government could delegate it to any officer it chose.

The Court resolved this in favour of flexibility: the statutory language — 'any officer authorised by the Central Government' — is permissive and does not restrict the power exclusively to the SFIO Director. The SFIO Director is one possible authorised officer, not the mandatory one.

For CLAT PG, this matters because Section 212 is the most tested SFIO provision. Examiners probe: (a) what triggers an SFIO investigation (Central Government order, court order, or Serious Fraud Investigation Office's own report); (b) the time limits for investigation (60 days, extendable by 180 days, further extendable with special court permission); (c) who can arrest without a warrant (SFIO officers under Section 212(8)); and (d) the director liability standard — a director is liable if they had knowledge or connived in the fraud.

This ruling adds a new testable dimension: the complaint-filing authority under Section 212(14) is not the SFIO Director by default but whoever the Central Government authorises. Examiners can now frame a question asking which officer MUST file the complaint — and the correct answer is that no single officer is mandated; authority rests with whomever the Central Government designates.