Supreme Court agrees to examine if ED can file petition before high courts under Article 226 as juristic person

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Tuesday decided to examine whether the Enforcement Directorate can file a writ petition before high courts under Article 226 of the Constitution for the enforcement of its rights as a 'juristic person'.

A bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Satish Chandra Sharma issued notice to the agency on petitions filed by the Kerala and Tamil Nadu governments.

The state governments questioned validity of an order passed by the Kerala High Court, which upheld the locus by the central agency to file writ petitions under Article 226.

A 'juristic person' is a legal entity recognised by the law and entitled to rights and duties in the same way as a human being.

On September 26, 2025, the Kerala High Court had upheld a single judge order staying the judicial inquiry into the ED probe of the 2020 gold smuggling through diplomatic channels.

The judicial inquiry commission was set up following allegations that ED officials coerced the accused to implicate political leaders, including the Chief Minister, in the gold smuggling case. The high court had dismissed an appeal filed by the Kerala government challenging the single bench's interim stay order.

The single bench declared that the ED had locus standi and granted an interim stay of the notification on August 11, 2021, prompting the state government to file an appeal. The case originated from a May 7, 2021 state government notification ordering a judicial inquiry under the Commission of Inquiry Act, 1952. The inquiry was ordered against ED officials accused of coercing the accused to implicate political leaders.

Former High Court judge Justice V K Mohanan was appointed to head the inquiry commission. The commission was tasked with examining evidence, including an audio clip attributed to accused Swapna Suresh and a letter by accused Sandeep Nair, both alleging coercion by ED officers. The ED deputy director moved the high court, questioning the state's authority to order an inquiry against the agency.

The State of Tamil Nadu also filed a transfer petition to shift a writ petition pending before Madras High Court to the Supreme Court under Article 139A of the Constitution, on the ground that the Enforcement Directorate, being a wing of the Ministry of Finance, is not a separate body or statutory authority and cannot misuse Article 226 to raise disputes against the state government instead of approaching the Supreme court under Article 131 of the Constitution.

Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal represented Kerala. Senior advocates P Wilson and Vikram Chowdhary appeared for the Tamil Nadu government.