The Supreme Court of India will examine whether the Enforcement Directorate (ED) is a juristic person with the right to file writ petitions before High Courts under Article 226 of the Constitution. The question goes to the heart of who can invoke constitutional remedies and could have far-reaching implications for Centre–State relations.
A Bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Satish Chandra Sharma issued notice to the Enforcement Directorate on appeals filed by the governments of Kerala and Tamil Nadu.
The two States have challenged a September 26, 2025, order of the Kerala High Court, which upheld the ED’s locus standi to move writ petitions under Article 226, according to Bar & Bench.
Centre vs State: Who can knock the High Court’s door?
Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal appeared for the Kerala government, while Senior Advocates P. Wilson and Vikram Chowdhary represented the Tamil Nadu government.
The States argue that the ED, as an investigating arm of the Centre, cannot independently approach High Courts and that such disputes should instead be brought by the Union government directly before the Supreme Court under Article 131, which deals with Centre–State disputes.
At the core of the challenge is a judicial inquiry ordered by the Kerala government to probe alleged attempts by central agencies, including the ED and Customs, to implicate Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan and other political leaders in the UAE gold smuggling case.
High Court order under the scanner
In its September 2025 judgment, a Division Bench of the Kerala High Court comprising Justices Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Syam Kumar VM dismissed the State’s appeal against a 2021 interim order passed by a single judge. That interim order had stayed the functioning of a judicial inquiry commission set up by the State government.
The High Court reasoned that the commission was only a fact-finding body and that allowing it to proceed alongside ongoing criminal investigations under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) could potentially derail the course of justice. This reasoning effectively tilted the balance in favour of central investigative agencies, reinforcing their primacy in cases involving central laws.
The single judge had stayed the commission in May 2021 after the State issued a notification under the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952, appointing retired Justice V.K. Mohanan as its chairperson.
The Justice V.K. Mohanan Commission was mandated to examine allegations of jurisdictional overreach and political bias by central agencies, particularly the ED, in linking State leaders to the gold smuggling case.
A constitutional question with political undertones
The ED later moved the High Court seeking to quash the State’s notification, contending that the inquiry was malicious, politically motivated and contrary to the principles of federalism. Accepting this argument, the single judge stayed the notification, a decision later upheld by the Division Bench.
The State government countered that the ED had no locus to file a writ petition and that permitting such actions would allow a central agency to directly challenge State decisions, bypassing constitutional safeguards meant to protect the federal balance.
The ED, on the other hand, maintained that investigations under central laws such as the PMLA and the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA) fall squarely within the Centre’s domain.
Also Watch:
The Supreme Court will now decide a larger constitutional issue: whether the ED can be treated as a juristic person competent to invoke Article 226. The outcome is likely to shape not just future litigation by central agencies, but also the contours of federalism and judicial oversight in politically sensitive investigations.
