The Supreme Court is set to examine a significant constitutional question—whether the Enforcement Directorate (ED) qualifies as a juristic entity empowered to invoke the writ jurisdiction of High Courts under Article 226 of the Constitution for enforcement of its rights.
A division bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma has issued notice in appeals filed by the ED against the governments of Kerala and Tamil Nadu. The appeals challenge a Kerala High Court order dated September 26, 2025, which upheld the ED’s locus standi to file writ petitions under Article 226.
The controversy traces back to the Kerala government’s decision to constitute a Judicial Commission of Inquiry to probe alleged jurisdictional overreach and political bias by central agencies, including the ED and Customs authorities. The commission was tasked with examining allegations that these agencies attempted to implicate the Kerala Chief Minister and other state officials in the UAE gold smuggling case.
Subsequently, the ED approached the Kerala High Court seeking to quash the state government’s notification establishing the commission, contending that the inquiry was mala fide and violated the principles of federalism.
A single judge of the Kerala High Court found merit in the ED’s arguments and passed an interim order staying the operation of the state notification constituting the commission. The judge held that the ED had the requisite standing to maintain a writ petition under Article 226.
The Kerala government challenged this interim order before a division bench, asserting that the ED, being a central investigative agency, had no locus standi to invoke the writ jurisdiction of a High Court. The state argued that any grievance against a state notification should have been raised by the Union government directly before the Supreme Court under Article 131 of the Constitution.
Rejecting the state’s appeal, the division bench upheld the single judge’s order and observed that the ED, as a federal agency, was entitled to maintain the writ petition.
The High Court also took note of earlier proceedings relating to the judicial inquiry. In August 2021, a single judge had stayed the functioning of the commission constituted in May 2021 under the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952, noting that it was a fact-finding body and that allowing it to proceed parallel to ongoing criminal investigations under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) could potentially derail the course of justice.
The High Court had further observed that investigations under PMLA, as well as under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA), fall squarely within the domain of the Union government, thereby limiting the state’s authority to scrutinize such actions through a commission of inquiry.
Aggrieved by the High Court’s ruling recognizing the ED’s locus standi, the Kerala and Tamil Nadu governments have approached the Supreme Court. The apex court will now examine whether the ED can be treated as a juristic person with enforceable legal rights under Article 226, and whether it is constitutionally permissible for a central agency to independently challenge state action before a High Court.
The outcome of this case is expected to have far-reaching implications for federal relations and the extent to which central investigative agencies can seek judicial remedies against state governments.
