The Supreme Court on Tuesday agreed to adjudicate a significant constitutional question: Can a central investigation agency like the Enforcement Directorate (ED) invoke writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution by claiming the status of a “juristic person”?
A bench comprising Justices Dipankar Datta and Satish Chandra Sharma issued notice to the central agency on appeals filed by the state governments of Kerala and Tamil Nadu. The states are challenging a Kerala High Court order that upheld the ED’s locus standi to file writ petitions, treating the agency as a legal entity entitled to rights similar to a human being.
The Constitutional Question
The core legal issue before the Apex Court is whether the ED, a government agency, falls under the definition of a “juristic person”—a non-human legal entity recognized by law as having rights and duties. The court will examine if such an agency can approach High Courts under Article 226, a provision empowering courts to issue writs for the enforcement of rights.
Background: The Kerala Gold Smuggling Probe
The legal battle stems from the politically sensitive 2020 gold smuggling case involving diplomatic channels. The conflict arose after the Kerala government issued a notification on May 7, 2021, ordering a judicial inquiry against ED officials.
The state government, invoking the Commission of Inquiry Act, 1952, appointed former High Court judge Justice V.K. Mohanan to head the commission. The inquiry was tasked with examining serious allegations that ED officials had coerced accused persons—specifically Swapna Suresh and Sandeep Nair—to implicate state political leaders, including the Chief Minister, in the smuggling case. The probe was based on evidence including an audio clip attributed to Suresh and a letter by Nair.
The High Court Proceedings
The Deputy Director of the ED moved the Kerala High Court challenging the state’s authority to order an inquiry against a central investigating agency.
On August 11, 2021, a single bench of the High Court granted an interim stay on the state’s notification, holding that the ED had the locus standi to challenge the inquiry. The Kerala government appealed this decision, arguing against the maintainability of the ED’s petition.
However, on September 26, last year, a Division Bench of the Kerala High Court dismissed the state’s appeal. The High Court observed that the appeal lacked merit and affirmed that the single bench had committed no error in entertaining the ED’s petition and staying the judicial inquiry.
The Supreme Court’s decision in this matter is expected to have far-reaching implications on the extent to which government agencies can assert constitutional remedies independent of the government they serve.
