New Delhi, Jan. 20: The Supreme Court on Monday issued notice to the Directorate of Enforcement (ED) on a plea by the Kerala and Tamil Nadu governments contending that the central agency is not a juristic person entitled to move High Courts under Article 226 of the Constitution for its enforcement — a provision that can be invoked by citizens and individuals for the enforcement of fundamental rights guaranteed under Part III of the Constitution.
A Bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma issued notice on the pleas filed by the Kerala and Tamil Nadu governments challenging a September 26, 2025 judgment of the Kerala High Court affirming the ED’s locus to maintain writ petitions under Article 226 of the constitution before the High Court.
Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal appeared for Kerala, while Senior Advocates P. Wilson and Vikram Chowdhary represented the Tamil Nadu government.
The controversy arises from a judicial inquiry commission constituted by the Kerala government in May 2021 under the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952, to examine allegations that central agencies—including the ED and Customs—had overstepped their jurisdiction and acted with political bias in attempting to link Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan and other State functionaries to the UAE gold smuggling case. The commission of inquiry was headed by retired Justice V.K. Mohanan.
The ED approached the Kerala High Court seeking to quash the State notification constituting the commission, contending that the move was malafide, contrary to federal principles, and liable to interfere with ongoing criminal proceedings under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA). A single judge, by an interim order in 2021, stayed the commission’s functioning, observing that a parallel fact-finding exercise could disrupt the course of justice.
The Kerala government’s appeal against that interim order was dismissed by a Division Bench comprising Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice Syam Kumar V.M., which upheld the single judge’s order staying the commission and held that the ED had the locus to invoke Article 226. The High Court reasoned that the commission was merely a fact-finding body and allowing it to proceed alongside pending PMLA proceedings could potentially derail criminal investigations.
Before the High Court, the State had argued that the ED lacked standing to file a writ petition and that any inter-governmental dispute between the Central government and one or more State governments ought to be resolved exclusively by the Supreme Court under Article 131, which confers original jurisdiction in disputes between the Union and the States. The ED countered that investigations under central statutes such as the PMLA and the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act fall within the Union’s domain.
In its appeal before the Supreme Court, Tamil Nadu has contended that the Kerala High Court’s ruling would adversely impact a mining-related dispute in which the ED has invoked writ jurisdiction and sought a mandamus for registration of a case. The State asserted that disputes between a State and a central agency can be adjudicated only under Article 131.
Tamil Nadu further argued that the ED, functioning under the Ministry of Finance and empowered by Section 49 of the PMLA, is not a separately constituted statutory body like the Central Bureau of Investigation, but a department of the Union itself. Emphasising the scope of Article 226, the plea states that there is no right vested in the ED to file a writ petition, adding:
“Neither is the DoE a juristic person nor can claim ‘enforcement of any of the rights conferred by Part III and for any other purpose’, which is the prerequisite for the issuance of a writ under Article 226 of the Constitution by the High Court.”
The issue has wider ramifications, as the Supreme Court is also seized of an ED petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution seeking registration of a CBI case against West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee. When that matter was heard on January 15, the West Bengal government opposed its maintainability, arguing that Article 32 is a remedy for citizens and individuals against the State. The Court nonetheless issued notice in that case.
The Supreme Court will now examine the maintainability of the ED’s recourse to writ jurisdiction under Article 226.
