Punjab had rushed to the High Court at night, alleging that the Enforcement Directorate was illegally confining its senior officers during a search at the GMADA headquarters. A day later, with the search over and the officers free, and a court-appointed Warrant Officer reporting that the officers themselves said they were not illegally detained, the State withdrew its habeas corpus plea, with liberty to raise its concerns before the appropriate forum.
Chandigarh: The State of Punjab has withdrawn its habeas corpus petition before the Punjab and Haryana High Court concerning the Enforcement Directorate’s (ED) search at the headquarters of the Greater Mohali Area Development Authority (GMADA), after the search concluded and the officers the State alleged had been illegally confined on the premises were set free [State of Punjab v. Union of India and Others].
Justice Sanjay Vashisth recorded that, faced with the changed circumstances, the search being over and the alleged detenues having been set free, Senior Advocate Vikram Chaudhary, for the State, sought to withdraw the petition, with liberty to raise all issues before an appropriate forum. The Court dismissed the petition as withdrawn with that liberty, holding that all relevant issues, including the State’s locus standi as raised by the Additional Solicitor General, would remain open for adjudication “if ever so required”, and directed the State to pay Rs 55,000 as the fee of the Warrant Officer appointed in the case.
The State’s petition
Acting through the Under Secretary of its Department of Home Affairs, the State had alleged that the ED’s Jalandhar Zonal Office was conducting a search, survey and seizure at the GMADA headquarters at PUDA Bhawan, Mohali, under Sections 16 and 17 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA), from around noon on September 22, and that several officers, including a Principal Secretary and the Chief Administrator and Additional Chief Administrators of GMADA, had been held in the ED’s custody since then. It sought their immediate release and the appointment of a Warrant Officer, along with the quashing of the PMLA authorisations, the return of seized records and devices, a declaration that Sections 16 and 17 do not permit the sealing of a State department’s premises, action against the ED officials under Section 62 of the PMLA, and compensation for an alleged violation of Article 21.
The late-night hearing and the Warrant Officer’s report
The Court had taken up the petition at about 10:42 pm on September 23 at its camp office, over a WhatsApp video call, and appointed a Warrant Officer to visit the premises. For the State, Senior Advocate Vikram Chaudhary had submitted that the raid had continued overnight for two days, that the officers had not been allowed to leave, and that the action was arbitrary and violated the officers’ rights under Article 21, relying on Supreme Court orders in the TASMAC and State of Tamil Nadu matters concerning the ED.
The Warrant Officer entered the GMADA office at about 2:50 am on September 24 and, according to his report, the officers said they were not illegally detained, had been allowed to speak to their families, and had food brought to them, with one officer stating he had been allowed to go home for a couple of hours. The ED officials told the Warrant Officer that survey and search warrants had been served, that panchnamas had been drawn, and that the officers remained on the premises only because the forensic team was cloning data from their devices in their presence, and could leave after authorising another officer to be present in their place. The details of the predicate offence, they said, were mentioned in each individual search warrant. These are the accounts recorded in the report, and the underlying allegations remain untested.
Why it matters
The episode is the latest instance of a State government going to court over the manner of a central agency’s action within its territory, a recurring flashpoint in Centre-State relations around the ED’s exercise of its powers. The habeas corpus route, ordinarily used to secure the release of a person in illegal detention, was invoked here on the premise that the officers were being confined during the search; once they were released and the search concluded, the foundation of that specific remedy fell away, which is why the State withdrew the petition rather than press it.
Significantly, the withdrawal was with liberty to raise all issues before an appropriate forum, and the Court expressly kept open the larger questions, including the State’s locus standi to bring such a petition, and, by extension, the challenges the State had raised to the scope of the ED’s powers to search and seal the premises of a State authority under the PMLA. Those questions, which go to the balance between central investigative powers and the functioning of State institutions, remain live for a future case, even though this particular petition has ended.
Nothing has been adjudicated on the merits. The Court did not rule on whether the officers had been illegally confined, on the validity of the PMLA authorisations, or on the ED’s powers; it recorded the changed circumstances and allowed the withdrawal, returning an unopened sealed cover of the ED’s documents as unnecessary to examine. The allegations on both sides, the State’s of illegal confinement and the ED’s underlying case against the GMADA officers, are untested, and the officers are entitled to the presumption of innocence in respect of any predicate offence. The dispute over the agency’s conduct, if pursued, will be tested in the appropriate proceedings.
Case Title: State of Punjab v. Union of India and Others
Bench: Justice Sanjay Vashisth, High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh
Date: September 24, 2026
Appearances: Senior Advocate Vikram Chaudhary, with the Additional Advocate General, Punjab, for the State; Additional Solicitor General Satya Pal Jain, with Senior Advocates Zoheb Hossain and Dheeraj Jain and others, for the ED.
Status: Habeas corpus petition dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty to raise all issues, including locus standi and the challenge to the ED’s powers, before an appropriate forum. Officers set free and search concluded; State to pay Rs 55,000 Warrant Officer fee. Allegations untested; no merits decided.