NEW DELHI JAN 20 : The Supreme Court on Tuesday agreed to examine whether the Enforcement Directorate (ED) can invoke Article 226 of the Constitution to file writ petitions before High Courts as a ‘juristic person’—a non-human legal entity recognized by law with rights and duties akin to natural persons.
A bench comprising Justices Dipankar Datta and Satish Chandra Sharma issued notice to the ED on separate appeals filed by the Kerala and Tamil Nadu governments. The states are challenging a Kerala High Court order that upheld the agency’s locus standi to approach courts under Article 226, which empowers High Courts to issue writs for enforcement of fundamental rights and other legal remedies.
The controversy stems from the ED’s investigation into a high-profile 2020 gold smuggling case involving diplomatic baggage. The Kerala government had constituted a judicial inquiry commission under the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952, through a notification dated May 7, 2021, to probe allegations that ED officials coerced accused individuals to falsely implicate political leaders, including the Chief Minister.
Former Kerala High Court Judge V.K. Mohanan was appointed to head the commission, tasked with examining key evidence such as an audio clip attributed to prime accused Swapna Suresh and a letter from co-accused Sandeep Nair. Both materials allegedly documented coercion by ED officers to fabricate political connections in the smuggling racket.
Challenging the state’s authority to investigate a central agency, an ED Deputy Director approached the Kerala High Court. On August 11, 2021, a single judge bench ruled that the ED possessed locus standi to file the petition and granted an interim stay on the judicial inquiry notification.
The Kerala government appealed this decision, but a Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the appeal on September 26, 2024, holding it lacked merit. The Division Bench found no error in the single judge’s order entertaining the ED’s petition and staying the inquiry, paving the way for the states’ appeals to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court’s decision to hear the matter carries significant implications for the balance of power between central investigative agencies and state governments. A ruling clarifying whether statutory bodies like the ED qualify as juristic persons entitled to constitutional remedies under Article 226 could reshape the legal landscape for inter-governmental disputes and agency accountability.
The case highlights ongoing tensions between federal and state authorities, particularly in politically charged investigations involving allegations of misuse of central agencies against state leadership. Both Kerala and Tamil Nadu governments argue that the High Court’s interpretation expands agency powers beyond constitutional limits.
Legal experts anticipate that the apex court’s verdict will provide authoritative guidance on the scope of Article 226 remedies available to government entities, potentially affecting numerous similar cases across the country.
