Karnataka HC slaps ₹1 lakh costs on man who lodged email complaint with CJI and ED Director against ED officer

The Karnataka High Court has imposed costs of ₹1 lakh on a litigant who had marked the Chief Justice of India (CJI) and the Delhi High Court Chief Justice on an email seeking the removal of an Enforcement Directorate (ED) officer from an ongoing investigation [Fair Vakkayil John Vs Union of India].

The July 25 email was sent to the ED Director's office, accusing an investigating officer of bias and seeking his recusal from the probe. Copies of the email were forwarded to the CJI, the Delhi High Court Chief Justice, the Finance Minister and the ED's Chief Vigilance Officer.

Justice Suraj Govindaraj took note of this while dealing with the litigant's writ petition seeking the High Court's intervention in the same issue.

The Court, however, found that the petitioner did not place any material to back up his allegations of bias against the ED's investigating officer.

"Except making a general allegation that the Investigating Officer is prejudiced against him, no material has been placed before this Court which would prima facie justify an inference that the investigation is actuated by mala fides or that the Investigating Officer has disabled himself from conducting a fair investigation. Mere apprehension or dissatisfaction on the part of the petitioner, howsoever strongly expressed, cannot by itself constitute a legal ground for directing substitution of the Investigating Officer," it said.

The Court further strongly reprimanded the manner in which the petitioner had ventilated his grievances by forwarding his email representation to constitutional functionaries.

“This Court is unable to approve either the substance of the representation or the manner in which it has been addressed... The constitutional courts do not entertain administrative representations relating to pending investigations through letters or e-mails addressed to the Hon'ble Chief Justices," it said.

The Court was dealing with a plea raising concerns about the fairness of an Assistant Director of the ED in conducting an ongoing probe. Among other reliefs, the plea sought directions to transfer the investigation to another investigating officer (IO).

The petitioner, Fair Vakkayil John, claimed that he had a reasonable apprehension that the present IO was biased and would not conduct a fair investigation.

He also informed the Court that he had earlier submitted a representation dated July 25, 2026, to the ED's Director calling for the present IO's recusal from the case, copies of which were forwarded to other authorities including the CJI and the Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court.

The Court, however, observed that the petitioner had not provided any proof to support his claim that the IO was biased. It held that a person facing an investigation does not have a vested right to choose who should investigate the case.

"Unless a clear case of mala fides, demonstrable bias, lack of jurisdiction or abuse of process is made out before a competent Court, the person under investigation cannot insist that the investigation should be conducted by an officer of his choice or seek the recusal of the Investigating Officer as a matter of right," the Court held.

The Court added that the petitioner should not have emailed the CJI or the Delhi High Court Chief Justice on such administrative matters in an ongoing investigation.

"Addressing representations concerning pending investigations to constitutional authorities who are neither the statutory decision- makers not otherwise concerned with the conduct of the investigation serves no legitimate legal purpose," the High Court said.

It observed that such emails only create an impression that the petitioner had tried to secure intervention through channels outside the judicial process. The Court said that such a course cannot be permitted, as it violates established judicial procedure and goes against institutional discipline.

“Any grievance regarding the fairness of an investigation must be urged before the competent forum in accordance with law and not through communications addressed to constitutional functionaries who are not expected to deal with such representations administratively,” the Court emphasised.

It opined that the petitioner's conduct warranted exemplary costs to deter similar attempts.

However, the Court confined to imposing costs of only ₹1 lakh on the petitioner, directing him to pay the amount to the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority.

"Any repetition of such conduct in future may invite appropriate consequences, including the imposition of exemplary costs," the Court warned.

Senior Advocate Sandesh J Chouta and advocate Mahesh YL represented the petitioner.

Assistant Solicitor General Anuparna Bordoloi appeared for the Union of India and the ED.

Advocate Manu Kulkarni represented the Bangalore International Airport Limited.

The Airports Authority of India was represented by advocate Joshua Hudson Samuel.

[Read Order]