New Delhi, Jan 20 (UNI) The Supreme Court on Tuesday agreed to examine whether the Enforcement Directorate (ED) is a juristic person entitled to file writ petitions before high courts under Article 226 of the Constitution for the enforcement of its rights.
A division bench comprising Justices Dipankar Datta and Satish Chandra Sharma issued notice to the ED on appeals filed by the governments of Kerala and Tamil Nadu challenging a September 26, 2025 order of the Kerala High Court, which upheld the ED’s locus standi to invoke writ jurisdiction under Article 226.
Senior advocate Kapil Sibal appeared for Kerala, while senior advocates P. Wilson and Vikram Chaudhary represented Tamil Nadu. The challenge arises from a Kerala High Court judgment that upheld a single-judge’s interim order staying a judicial commission of inquiry constituted by the Kerala government in May 2021 under the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952.
The commission, headed by retired Justice V.K. Mohanan, was tasked with examining alleged jurisdictional overreach and political bias by Central agencies, including the ED and Customs, in connection with attempts to link Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan and other state officials to the UAE gold smuggling case.
The single judge had stayed the inquiry after the ED moved the High Court seeking to quash the state’s notification constituting the commission, contending that the exercise was malafide and violated principles of federalism.
The judge held that the commission was only a fact-finding body and that allowing it to proceed in parallel to pending criminal proceedings under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) could potentially derail the course of justice.
The state government’s appeal against the interim order was dismissed by a division bench of the Kerala High Court comprising Justices Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Syam Kumar VM, which upheld the ED’s locus to maintain the writ petition.
Before the Supreme Court, Kerala has reiterated that the ED has no locus to invoke Article 226 and argued that any dispute between a state and the Centre or its agencies ought to be adjudicated only by the Supreme Court under Article 131 of the Constitution.
Tamil Nadu has contended that the Kerala High Court verdict would adversely impact its own case in a mining matter, where the ED has invoked writ jurisdiction seeking a mandamus for registration of a case.
Tamil Nadu has further submitted that the ED is a department functioning under the Ministry of Finance, government of India, empowered under Section 49 of the PMLA, and is not a separately constituted statutory body. Unlike the Central Bureau of Investigation, the ED is not an independent juristic entity but forms part of the union government itself, the plea states.
The state has argued that Article 226 is premised on the enforcement of fundamental rights or “any other purpose,” and that no such right vests in the ED to maintain a writ petition.
“Neither is the Directorate of Enforcement a juristic person nor can it claim enforcement of any rights under Part III of the Constitution, which is a prerequisite for issuance of a writ under Article 226,” the petition contends.
The Supreme Court will now consider the larger constitutional question on the ED’s status and its entitlement to independently invoke writ jurisdiction before high courts.
