The Supreme Courtroom in the present day (January 20) issued discover on the pleas filed by the States of Kerala and Tamil Nadu, questioning whether or not the Enforcement Directorate has the ability to file a writ petition beneath Article 226 of the Indian Structure. Discover is issued returnable inside 4 weeks; no keep has been granted.
Each the States have filed separate petitions in opposition to the Kerala Excessive Courtroom’s order holding that ED is a statutory authority and subsequently has the ability to invoke writ jurisdiction beneath Article 226.
Earlier than a bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma, Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal appeared for the State of Kerala, and one other counsel appeared for the State of Tamil Nadu.
On the outset, Justice Sharma remarked that the order is just interim in nature. To this, Sibal responded that it’s ultimate within the context of the State of Kerala. Sibal submitted that due to this order, the difficulty that the Courtroom must adjudicate is whether or not the ED division can invoke the writ jurisdiction.
He mentioned: “Due to this ultimate order, the difficulty that mylords need to in massive adjudicate is the competence of this division to file a writ petition in Article 226. Whether or not this may be coated by mylords choice in Chief Conservator of Forest. Article 131 and 226 interaction.”
The State of Kerala has challenged the September 26, 2025, order of the division bench of the Kerala Excessive Courtroom, which upheld the Single Decide’s interim order staying the State-appointed Inquiry Fee to probe if the ED and different central companies are falsely implicating political leaders within the State, together with its CM Pinarayi Vijayan, within the gold smuggling case.
The gold smuggling case concerned the seizure of 30 Kgs gold value Rs.14.82 Crores on the Thiruvananthapuram Worldwide Airport on July 6, 2020. It was allegedly marked as ‘Diplomatic Baggage’ and despatched to the UAE Consulate.
In the course of the course of the investigation, offences beneath the Illegal Actions (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA) and Prevention of Cash Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) additionally got here to gentle. Thereupon, the Nationwide Investigation Company (NIA) and ED additionally registered circumstances. Prime accused within the case, Swapna Suresh and Sandeep Nair, had been allegedly compelled by the ED to signal statements implicating the CPI(M) backed Chief Minister.
The ED had filed a writ petition difficult the notification of the Inquiry Fee, headed by former HC decide Justice V.Okay. Mohanan.
The State had argued that ED is just a division of the Central Authorities and it will probably’t invoke Article 226 jurisdiction. However the Single Decide bench noticed that it’s a statutory physique and subsequently entitled to file writ petition beneath Article 226.
It mentioned: “Insofar because the Directorate of Enforcement is a statutory physique, the competition that it is just a Division of the Central Authorities is just to be rejected. The proposition {that a} statutory physique is entitled to file a writ petition invoking Article 226 of the Structure can’t be doubted. In different phrases, the Directorate of Enforcement is definitely entitled to institute a writ petition in its identify…Deputy Director of Enforcement is a statutory authority beneath the PML Act and in that capability, he’s definitely entitled to file a writ petition. As such, even assuming that the Directorate of Enforcement shouldn’t be entitled to institute a writ petition in its identify, it can’t be mentioned that the Deputy Director of Enforcement has no locus standi to institute the writ petition.”
Case Particulars: STATE OF KERALA AND ORS. v ENFORCEMENT DIRECTORATE AND ANR|SLP(C) No. 1479/2026
THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND ORS. v DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT|T.P.(Crl.) No. 34/2026 &
STATE OF TAMIL NADU v ENFORCEMENT DIRECTORATE AND ORS.|Diary No. 1263-2026









