The Supreme Court is set to decide whether the Enforcement Directorate can file writ petitions under Article 226, raising a key constitutional issue on whether central agencies can bypass Article 131 and approach High Courts directly in disputes with States.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court is set to examine a fundamental constitutional question: Can the Enforcement Directorate (ED) be treated as a juristic person empowered to file writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution?
A Division Bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Satish Chandra Sharma issued notices to the ED in appeals filed by the Governments of Kerala and Tamil Nadu.
This case is not just about legal procedure. It raises deep issues of federalism, separation of powers, and the scope of central investigative agencies.
In September 2025, the Kerala High Court held that the ED has the authority to file writ petitions under Article 226. This ruling has been challenged by the governments of Kerala and Tamil Nadu, leading to a Supreme Court appeal.
The Supreme Court will now decide whether ED, as a central agency, can approach a High Court directly to protect its rights, or whether such disputes must be handled only by the Supreme Court under Article 131.
Kerala set up a commission to investigate alleged interference by central agencies (including the ED and Customs) in the UAE gold smuggling case, especially focusing on suspected attempts to implicate Kerala’s Chief Minister and other leaders.
The ED moved the Kerala High Court seeking to quash the commission, claiming:
- The commission was malicious and politically motivated.
- It interfered with ongoing PMLA investigations.
- A state inquiry into a central investigation violated federal principles.
The High Court issued an interim stay on the inquiry.
Legal Question
The Supreme Court must decide whether the Enforcement Directorate (ED) can be treated as a juristic person with the right to file writ petitions before a High Court.
1. Can the ED be a “juristic person”?
A juristic person is an entity recognized by law as having legal rights and duties.
The key question is: Does the ED, as a government agency, have the legal status to sue or seek judicial relief like a private entity?
2. Can Article 226 be invoked by the ED?
Article 226 allows High Courts to issue writs:
- to enforce Fundamental Rights, and
- for any other purpose.
The debate is whether the ED can claim “enforcement of rights” or any legal interest under Article 226, since it is not an individual citizen.
Arguments Presented
Kerala’s Argument (Against ED)
Kerala argues that:
- The ED cannot file a writ because it has no fundamental right under Part III.
- Any dispute between a state and the Centre should be resolved only by the Supreme Court under Article 131.
- The ED is not a juristic person and therefore cannot invoke Article 226.
ED’s Argument (Supporting Its Locus)
ED maintains:
- PMLA and UAPA are central laws, and enforcement is a federal function.
- State actions that interfere with central investigations undermine national policy.
- Article 226 can be invoked because the commission threatens the course of justice in ongoing investigations.
Tamil Nadu has filed a similar appeal because it fears the Kerala ruling will impact its own case involving mining investigations, where ED has sought writ relief.
Tamil Nadu’s argument:
- Only the Supreme Court can decide disputes involving the Centre and a State under Article 131.
- Allowing ED to use Article 226 would bypass the constitutional structure.
Article 226 vs Article 131: Difference
The dispute revolves around which constitutional power applies when a central agency like the ED challenges a State action:
The Kerala and Tamil Nadu governments argue that the ED cannot use Article 226 because it is not a person with rights enforceable by a High Court. They insist that any conflict between a State and a central agency must be taken to the Supreme Court under Article 131.
Article 226 allows High Courts to issue writs to protect legal rights, especially fundamental rights. However, it is primarily meant for citizens or entities that have a clear legal interest in the matter.
On the other hand, Article 131 gives the Supreme Court exclusive power to decide disputes where the Central Government is opposed by one or more States. This means that when a State and the Centre conflict, the Constitution restricts the forum to the Supreme Court alone.
So the issue is If the ED is not a juristic person, can it still use Article 226, or must it rely on Article 131?
Parallel Case: ED vs West Bengal
The Supreme Court is also hearing a case where ED filed a petition under Article 32 seeking a CBI inquiry against West Bengal CM Mamata Banerjee.
West Bengal argues:
- Article 32 is for citizens, not government agencies.
- ED cannot use the fundamental rights jurisdiction.
However, the Supreme Court issued notice to Mamata Banerjee, signaling the case’s significance.
