Can Enforcement Directorate Approach High Courts? Supreme Court to Decide
The Supreme Court of India has agreed to examine an important constitutional question — whether the Enforcement Directorate (ED) has the legal standing to file writ petitions before High Courts under Article 226 of the Constitution.
A Bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Satish Chandra Sharma issued notice to the ED while hearing appeals filed by the governments of Kerala and Tamil Nadu. These appeals challenge a September 2025 judgment of the Kerala High Court, which had held that the ED is entitled to invoke Article 226.
The issue arose from a dispute linked to the UAE gold smuggling case. In 2021, the Kerala government set up a judicial commission under the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952, headed by retired Justice V.K. Mohanan. The commission was asked to examine allegations of political bias and jurisdictional overreach by central agencies, including the ED, in allegedly trying to link Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan and other leaders to the case.
The ED challenged the State notification creating the commission before the Kerala High Court. It argued that allowing such an inquiry to proceed alongside criminal investigations under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) could affect the administration of justice and violated principles of federalism.
A single judge stayed the commission’s proceedings in 2021. This stay was later upheld by a Division Bench of the Kerala High Court in September 2025, which also held that the ED had the locus (legal standing) to file the writ petition.
Kerala and Tamil Nadu have now approached the Supreme Court, arguing that the ED is not a separate juristic person and therefore cannot file writ petitions under Article 226. They contend that disputes between the Central government (or its agencies) and a State must be decided only by the Supreme Court under Article 131 of the Constitution.
Tamil Nadu has further argued that the Kerala High Court ruling could affect similar cases, including a mining-related matter where the ED has sought directions through writ jurisdiction.
According to Tamil Nadu, the ED functions as a department under the Ministry of Finance and is not an independent statutory body. Since Article 226 is meant for enforcement of fundamental rights or other legal rights, the State argues that the ED has no such enforceable rights of its own.
The matter gains more significance because the Supreme Court is already hearing another petition filed by the ED under Article 32, seeking registration of a CBI case against West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee. That plea has also been opposed on the ground that constitutional remedies under Article 32 are meant for citizens, not government agencies.
The Supreme Court will now decide whether the ED can legally approach High Courts under Article 226 and whether such actions are constitutionally valid.
