In a decision that has sent shockwaves across the nation, the Supreme Court has offered to “wipe the slate clean” for fugitive businessmen Nitin and Chetan Sandesra, promoters of the Sterling Group, if they deposit Rs 5,100 crore by December 17. The brothers, accused of defrauding public sector banks of over Rs 14,000 crore (approximately $1.6 billion), fled the country in 2017 and are currently in Nigeria, which has refused India’s extradition request, citing the allegations as “political in nature”.

The court’s proposal effectively halts all ongoing CBI, ED, SFIO, and Income Tax proceedings against the Sandesras upon payment — a move critics say monetizes justice and allows economic offenders to buy their way out of criminal liability. While the bench of Justice JK Maheshwari and Justice Vijay Bishnoi clarified that the order is based on the “peculiar facts of the case” and must not be treated as precedent, many fear the optics send a dangerous message: loot, flee, negotiate, and return.

The controversy centers on the steep discount being offered. Sources indicate the Rs 5,100 crore settlement is roughly one-third of the alleged default amount. Critics argue that allowing fugitives to settle criminal cases through monetary payments undermines years of investigation and erodes public trust in the justice system. The settlement, originally proposed at Rs 6,761 crore, was brought down to Rs 5,100 crore after negotiations. Notably, the government’s lawyer submitted the final proposal in a sealed cover to the court. The Sandesra brothers have already paid Rs 358 crore and maintain that the payment is not an admission of guilt but simply a means to “get rid of all proceedings.”

Legal experts are divided. A section of legal fraternity advocate defended the verdict, calling it a “mature and pragmatic” decision. Speaking on a primetime news debate, a senior advocate pointed out that the original FIR was registered for around ₹5,300 crore, and that banks — the primary lenders and stakeholders — themselves proposed the settlement to the Supreme Court. He argued that when extradition from Nigeria is impossible and proceedings would drag on endlessly, recovering ₹5,100 crore in national interest is sensible, adding that 90–95% of cases in the United States are settled out of court.

However, several others strongly disagreed. Another advocate called the order “deeply problematic”, asserting that serious economic offences involving money laundering and fraud are non-compoundable under Indian law. He made it clear that criminal liability could not be settled like a civil dispute. “This legitimizes the loot-flee-bargain model,” he said, questioning why this case was singled out while other high-profile fugitives like Vijay Mallya and Nirav Modi face relentless prosecution.

A former banker Sanjay Sharma added another dimension, stating that while recovery matters, conflating civil debt resolution with criminal accountability sets a perilous precedent. Stating the importance of perception, he opined that not only must justice be served, but also “it must be seen to be done”, noting that public sector banks often face political pressure and that massive haircuts under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) rarely attract similar scrutiny.

A legal expert of corporate and insolvency based laws offered a more nuanced view. While he disagreed in principle with compounding serious economic offences, he acknowledged the court’s practical dilemma. He recalled that in most company tribunals and IBC resolutions, banks are taking 80–90% haircuts( shortages while recovery) — sometimes recovering almost nothing. “Here, at least a respectable amount is coming back,” he said. However, he stressed that accountability must extend beyond the borrowers to the bank officials who sanctioned dubious loans in the first place.

As the December 17 deadline approaches, the Sandesra settlement has ignited a larger national conversation about whether India’s fight against economic offenders is being diluted by judicial pragmatism. With taxpayers ultimately bearing the cost of prolonged litigation against fugitives abroad, the Supreme Court’s attempt at realistic resolution has left the country bitterly divided between those who see it as practical recovery and those who view it as a betrayal of the rule of law.