The Supreme Court will examine whether the Enforcement Directorate is a juristic person entitling it to file a writ petition before High Courts under Article 226 of the Constitution for enforcement of its rights.
A Division Justices Dipankar Datta and Satish Chandra Sharma issued notice to the ED on appeals filed by the governments of Kerala and Tamil Nadu challenging an order passed by the Kerala High Court on September 26, 2025 upholding ED's locus to file writ petitions under Article 226.
Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal represented Kerala. Senior advocates P. Wilson and Vikram Chowdhary appeared for Tamil Nadu government.
The Kerala High Court in its September 2025 order had upheld the stay on the judicial inquiry ordered by the State government to investigate alleged attempts by central agencies, including the Enforcement Directorate (ED) and Customs, to implicate Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan and other political leaders in the UAE gold smuggling case.
The Division bench of Justices Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Syam Kumar VM dismissed the State government's appeal against a 2021 interim order passed by a single-judge which had stayed the judicial inquiry.
The Court observed that the commission of inquiry was only a fact finding body and allowing it to proceed parallel to pending criminal proceedings under PMLA could potentially derail the course of justice.
The single-judge's order had temporarily stayed the judicial inquiry commission set up in May 2021 under the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952, (COI Act) through a government notification, with retired Justice VK Mohanan as its chairperson.
The Justice VK Mohanan Commission was tasked to examine alleged jurisdictional overreach and political bias by central agencies, particularly the ED, in attempting to link the Chief Minister and other State officials to the gold smuggling case.
The ED subsequently moved the High Court seeking to quash the State's notification constituting the commission, contending that such exercise of power by the State was malafide and against the principles of federalism.
Finding merit in the ED's contention, the single-judge issued an interim order staying the notification.
The State then filed an appeal against the single-judge's order.
It argued that the ED had no locus to maintain a writ petition and added that any grievance against the notification should have been raised by the Central government under Article 131 (Original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court) of the Constitution.
However, the ED stated that inquiries into matters under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) and Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA), both central legislations, fell within the powers of the Central government and not the State.
After going through the submissions, the Division Bench observed that the ED had locus to maintain the writ petition and upheld the single-judge's interim order on September 26 last year.
In its appeal against the same, Tamil Nadu has contended that its case in a mining matter will be impacted by the Kerala High Court verdict since the ED has invoked writ jurisdiction in the mining matter and has sought mandamus for registration of a case.
As per the plea, a dispute between the Central government or its agency and a State can be resolved only by the Supreme Court in exercise of its powers under Article 131 of the Constitution which confers the top court with sole and exclusive jurisdiction to decide any dispute between Government of India and one or more State.
The ED is a department functioning under the control of the Ministry of Finance, Government of India, and it is an authority empowered under Section 49 of the PMLA to enforce the provisions of the said legislation. The DoE, unlike the Central Bureau of Investigation, is not a separately statutorily created agency but it is a part of the Government of India itself, the Tami Nadu government has said in its petition.
Pertinently, Article 226 is premised on a fundamental postulate for “the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by Part III and for any other purpose”, the plea states.
As per the the plea, there is no right vested with the ED to file a writ petition under any circumstances whatsoever.
"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 plea states.
Interestingly, the Supreme Court is seized of another petition by ED filed under Article 32 of the Constitution seeking registration of a CBI case against West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee.
Article 32 gives citizens to move the Supreme Court directly for violation of fundamental rights.
When that petition by ED was heard on January 15, the West Bengal government strongly opposed its maintainability saying that Article 32 is a remedy for individual citizens against government and government agencies cannot use the same.
The Supreme Court nevertheless issued notice to Mamata Banerjee on that plea.