In an extraordinary late-night sitting conducted over WhatsApp, the Punjab and Haryana High Court appointed a warrant officer to visit the GMADA premises after the Punjab government alleged that the Enforcement Directorate had confined its top IAS officers during ongoing raids, moving a habeas corpus petition at 10 PM.
Chandigarh: The Punjab and Haryana High Court held a late-night hearing, conducted over WhatsApp, after the Punjab government alleged that the Enforcement Directorate (ED) had detained its senior bureaucrats during the agency’s ongoing raids at the office of the Greater Mohali Development Authority (GMADA), and appointed a warrant officer to visit the premises and report on the situation [State of Punjab v. Union of India and Others].
Justice Sanjay Vashisht took up a habeas corpus petition moved by the Punjab government at 10 PM, concerning the alleged illegal confinement of IAS officers Vikas Garg and Sandeep Reshi and various senior officers of GMADA. The order was passed at 10:42 PM. The allegations of confinement are those of the State government; the underlying money-laundering investigation is at an ongoing, pre-adjudication stage, and nothing has been established.
The State’s allegations
The Punjab government alleged that the ED’s raid had been continuing for the previous two days and that its officers had not been allowed to go to their homes since September 22. The ED is stated to be conducting the searches at the GMADA office in connection with a money-laundering probe. Senior Advocate Vikram Chaudhari, with Additional Advocate General Ferry Sofat, appeared for the State of Punjab.
The habeas corpus remedy, a writ literally meaning “to produce the body,” is the constitutional mechanism through which a court tests the legality of a person’s detention and secures the release of anyone held without lawful authority. Its invocation here, by a State government on behalf of its own officers, and the Court’s willingness to convene at night to hear it, underscore the urgency the situation was said to present.
The warrant officer, and the directions
Rather than record a finding on the disputed question of confinement at that hour, the Court adopted the established device of appointing a warrant officer, a court-nominated officer sent to inspect a premises and report back, to ascertain the facts on the ground. It directed its Registry to appoint a warrant officer to visit the GMADA premises and the office of Vikas Garg, the Principal Secretary, Department of Housing and Urban Development.
The warrant officer was directed to examine the overall situation, including whether any predicate offence had been registered against the officers of GMADA or the organisation itself, a significant inquiry, since a scheduled “predicate offence” is the jurisdictional foundation for an investigation under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act. The Court further directed the release of any female official found confined at the premises, if deemed appropriate, and ordered the Chandigarh Police to provide adequate security and facilities to enable compliance. The warrant officer was asked to submit a report by 2 PM the following day.
According to sources cited in the report, the warrant officer entered the GMADA premises at around 2:50 AM and left at about 5:45 AM.
Why it matters
The episode is striking on two fronts. Procedurally, it is a vivid illustration of the judiciary’s readiness to convene at any hour, and through any available medium, including a messaging platform, where personal liberty is said to be at immediate risk. Courts in India have, in recent years, increasingly held urgent after-hours and virtual sittings in cases of alleged illegal detention, executions of death sentences, and similar exigencies, and this WhatsApp hearing sits within that tradition of ensuring that the habeas corpus remedy remains available around the clock. The appointment of a warrant officer, empowered to enter the premises, assess the situation and secure the release of anyone unlawfully confined, is a measured response that establishes the facts without prejudging the legality of the ED’s action.
The matter also sits within the wider, and legally significant, terrain of the limits on investigative agencies during search and seizure operations. The extent to which persons present at a premises during a raid may be prevented from leaving, the distinction between a lawful search and de facto detention, and the safeguards that attend the exercise of coercive powers under statutes like the PMLA, are all questions that recur in such disputes. Here, the Court has, for now, confined itself to fact-finding through the warrant officer; the correctness of the State’s allegations, and the ED’s response, will turn on what that inquiry reveals. Nothing has been adjudicated on the merits, and the money-laundering investigation continues in accordance with law.
Case: Habeas corpus petition moved by the State of Punjab
Bench: Justice Sanjay Vashisht, Punjab and Haryana High Court
Date of Hearing: Late night, September 23-24, 2026