The Delhi High Court has directed the Enforcement Directorate (ED) to remove a controversial press release from its official website regarding its investigation into the FIITJEE coaching institute. The decision comes after the court observed that the statement contained “judgmental aspersions” that appeared to violate official government guidelines for media briefings.
Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav issued the direction on May 6 during a hearing on a petition filed by FIITJEE. Following a statement from the ED confirming it would voluntarily withdraw the document, the court closed the proceedings, granting the federal agency seven days to complete the process.
The legal dispute centered on a press release issued by the ED last year. FIITJEE alleged that the agency had overstepped its jurisdiction by including several “presumptions and assumptions” within the text. The institute argued that the tone of the release was in direct violation of a 2010 Office Memorandum issued by the Union Home Ministry, which sets strict standards for how investigative agencies should communicate with the press.
During a preliminary review on March 18, the court noted that the release appeared to contain “judgmental aspersions.” This contradicted Clause VII of the MHA’s 2010 memorandum, which explicitly states that police and investigative authorities must refrain from making opinionated or judgmental statements while briefing the media on ongoing cases.
In its defense, the Enforcement Directorate submitted that the contents of the press release were a summary of material collected during its investigation. The agency contended that its probe had uncovered a “large-scale conspiracy and fraud” allegedly committed by the petitioner, resulting in multiple FIRs across various states.
However, the court maintained a narrow focus on the procedural conduct of the agency rather than the merits of the investigation itself. Justice Kaurav clarified that the court was not adjudicating on the gravity of the alleged offenses, but was strictly determining whether the public statement fulfilled the criteria established by the Home Ministry’s guidelines.
The ED’s counsel informed the court that the department would take “appropriate steps” to withdraw the release without the court having to rule formally on the merits of the 2010 Office Memorandum.
“Let the steps be taken by the respondents within a period of 7 days from today,” the court ordered, noting that the petition had become infructuous in light of the agency’s commitment to pull the statement.
The ruling reinforces the 2010 guidelines intended to protect the integrity of investigations and the reputations of those involved before a final adjudication is reached in a court of law.
