3 months ago
2
The communicative truthful far:
On January 20, the Supreme Court agreed to analyse whether the Enforcement Directorate (ED) is entitled to invoke the writ jurisdiction of law courts to question relief. A Bench comprising Justices Dipankar Datta and Satish Chandra Sharma admitted abstracted petitions filed by the Kerala and Tamil Nadu governments challenging a Kerala High Court ruling that upheld the agency’s close to bash so. Taking enactment of the important question of instrumentality raised by the Opposition-ruled States, the Bench directed that the substance beryllium listed for proceeding aft 4 weeks.
When tin courts contented writs?
In India, the Supreme Court is vested with the powerfulness to contented prerogative writs nether Article 32 of the Constitution, portion High Courts workout a akin jurisdiction nether Article 226. These writs hint their origins to English communal law, wherever they evolved arsenic bonzer remedies issued by the sovereign successful situations wherever mean ineligible remedies were unavailable oregon ineffective.
The Constitution recognises 5 specified writs — habeas corpus (to unafraid the merchandise of a idiosyncratic from unlawful detention), mandamus (to compel a nationalist authorization to execute a statutory oregon nationalist duty), prohibition (to restrain a little tribunal oregon tribunal from acting beyond its authority), certiorari (to quash an bid of a little tribunal oregon tribunal for deficiency of jurisdiction oregon illegality), and quo warranto (to question the legality of a person’s assertion to a nationalist office).
While Article 32 enables the Supreme Court to contented writs chiefly for the enforcement of cardinal rights, Article 226 vests High Courts with broader authority, allowing them to contented writs not lone for enforcing cardinal rights but besides “for immoderate different purpose”, including the enforcement of ineligible rights and the reappraisal of administrative action. However, the assistance of specified writs is discretionary, and courts whitethorn diminution alleviation wherever an effectual alternate remedy is already available.
Further, nether Article 361 of the Constitution, a writ of mandamus cannot beryllium issued against the President oregon the Governor of a State with respect to the workout and show of the powers and duties of their office. A writ besides does not ordinarily prevarication against backstage individuals oregon bodies, but successful cases wherever the authorities is alleged to person acted successful collusion with a backstage enactment successful usurpation of law oregon statutory provisions.
Why did Kerala attack the SC?
The quality traces its root to a September 26, 2025 ruling of a Division Bench of the Kerala High Court, which held that the ED, established by the Union authorities nether Section 36 of the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 (1999 Act) pursuant to a June 2000 notification, is simply a statutory assemblage entitled to invoke the writ jurisdiction of High Courts nether Article 226 of the Constitution.
The ruling arose from a writ petition filed by the ED challenging the Kerala government’s determination to represent a Commission of Inquiry (CoI) successful transportation with the diplomatic golden smuggling case. The lawsuit relates to the seizure of 30 kg of gold, valued astatine ₹14.82 crore, from diplomatic baggage arriving from the United Arab Emirates astatine the Thiruvananthapuram International Airport connected July 5, 2020. The National Investigation Agency subsequently registered a lawsuit nether the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, alongside parallel proceedings initiated by the ED nether the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA).
The lawsuit aboriginal emerged arsenic a flashpoint betwixt the Centre and the State aft Swapna Prabha Suresh, the premier accused, released an audio clip alleging that ED officials had coerced her into implicating persons holding precocious bureau successful the State. Similar allegations were subsequently made successful a missive by a co-accused. Acting connected these allegations, the Pinarayi Vijayan authorities had tasked the enquiry committee to probe if determination was a conspiracy afoot against the State’s leaders and, if so, to unearth the individuality of those down the plot.
The ED, thereafter, done its Deputy Director, approached the High Court challenging the May 7, 2021, notification constituting the CoI. It sought a writ of mandamus to telephone for the applicable records and a writ of certiorari to quash the notification connected the crushed that it was wholly without jurisdiction and contrary to law.
However, the Kerala authorities questioned the ED’s locus to support a writ petition, contending that it is simply a section of the Union authorities and not a juristic idiosyncratic oregon assemblage firm susceptible of suing oregon being sued. It further argued that the agency’s lone disposable remedy laic nether Article 131 of the Constitution, which vests the Supreme Court with exclusive jurisdiction to adjudicate disputes betwixt the Centre and the States. To buttress its contention, the State besides relied connected the Supreme Court’s 2003 ruling successful Chief Conservator of Forests, Government of Andhra Pradesh versus Collector, which had deprecated the signifier of Centre and State governments filing writ petitions against each different earlier High Courts.
What did the High Court rule?
In August 2021, a azygous justice of the High Court rejected the State government’s objection to the maintainability of the ED’s writ petition, observing that ED officers workout statutory powers and that the bureau cannot beryllium treated arsenic simply a section of the Union government. The State’s entreaty against this determination was dismissed by a Division Bench successful its September 2025 ruling.
The Bench, comprising Justices Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Syam Kumar V.M., reiterated that the ED is simply a statutory assemblage and that its officers are designated statutory authorities nether Sections 48 and 49 of the PMLA. Rejecting the State’s contention that the bureau lacked juristic property and the capableness to sue, the Bench observed that specified an objection amounted to a “trivial defect” and was “a substance of signifier and not substance”, which could not decision the ED’s statutory close to question recourse nether Article 226 of the Constitution.
What person Kerala and Tamil Nadu argued earlier the Supreme Court?
In its entreaty earlier the apical court, the Kerala authorities objected to the High Court’s characterisation of its situation to the maintainability of the ED’s writ petition arsenic a “trivial defect”. It pointed retired that the Supreme Court, successful Chief Conservator of Forests, had held that the capableness of a ineligible entity — earthy oregon artificial — to writer oregon beryllium sued is simply a substance of sizeable value and that proceedings would neglect if the indispensable enactment lacked specified capacity.
The State further contended that the Deputy Director of the ED, being lone an serviceman and not a juristic person, lacked the locus to record a writ petition. “Hence, helium besides could not person filed a writ petition. Therefore, the uncovering of the High Court that the Deputy Director of Enforcement has locus standi to institute the writ petition is erroneous… Neither the provisions of the 1999 Act nor the PMLA confer immoderate ineligible property connected the ED truthful arsenic to entitle it to beryllium treated arsenic a juristic idiosyncratic competent to sue,” the petition stated. Tamil Nadu, supporting Kerala’s challenge, submitted that it had been placed successful astir identical circumstances. It alleged that the ED had indulged successful a “gross and blatant maltreatment of the process of law” by filing a writ petition earlier the Madras High Court successful transportation with proceedings relating to alleged amerciable mining successful the State. In a abstracted entreaty earlier the Supreme Court, Tamil Nadu argued that the Kerala High Court’s ruling had “emboldened the ED to task a akin enactment of action” earlier the Madras High Court successful its case.
What are the imaginable implications?
“It is contested whether the ED tin beryllium placed connected the aforesaid footing arsenic statutory bodies specified arsenic the Securities and Exchange Board of India oregon the Reserve Bank of India, which are juristic entities with perpetual succession and an explicit statutory capableness to writer and beryllium sued”, Alok Prasanna Kumar, co-founder of the Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy, told The Hindu. He noted that the ED is wide regarded arsenic an instrumentality of the Union government, prosecuting cases connected its behalf alternatively than functioning arsenic an autonomous ineligible entity.
Mr. Kumar further pointed retired that the ED does not person immoderate autarkic ineligible rights vis-à-vis State governments. “State governments bash not beryllium immoderate ‘public duty’ to the ED that could warrant the issuance of a writ of mandamus oregon certiorari against them. At best, the allegation whitethorn beryllium that a State has encroached upon the powers of the ED arsenic an limb of the Union government. Such a assertion would person to beryllium pursued arsenic a Centre-State quality nether Article 131 of the Constitution, implicit which the Supreme Court has exclusive jurisdiction”, helium said.
