Statutory Restrictions Can't Curtail Article 226 Powers To Order FIR, Investigation Where Cognizable Offence Made Out: Kerala High Court
The Kerala High Court has held that statutory restrictions cannot curtail its constitutional powers under Article 226 of the Constitution to direct registration of a First Information Report (FIR) or an investigation where the materials before it disclose a cognizable offence warranting such action. [2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 602]Justice A. Badharudeen delivered the judgment in a petition...
The Kerala High Court has held that statutory restrictions cannot curtail its constitutional powers under Article 226 of the Constitution to direct registration of a First Information Report (FIR) or an investigation where the materials before it disclose a cognizable offence warranting such action. [2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 602]
Justice A. Badharudeen delivered the judgment in a petition seeking direction to the Central Bureau of Investigation and the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau (VACB) to examine the alleged involvement of four individuals in an ongoing corruption investigation concerning officials of the Enforcement Directorate's Kochi Zonal Office.
The underlying vigilance case was registered on May 15, 2025, following allegations that an Assistant Director of the Enforcement Directorate had demanded a bribe of ₹2 crore through an intermediary for settling a case. The trap operation resulted in the intermediary allegedly being caught accepting ₹2 lakh as illegal gratification.
During the investigation, a hawala agent and a chartered accountant were also identified and arrayed as accused, according to the statement filed by the VACB.
The petitioner subsequently sought an investigation into the alleged involvement of four other individuals, referring to allegations concerning hawala transactions, financial irregularities and interference in official enquiries.
The VACB informed the Court that the investigation was progressing and that no reliable material had emerged connecting the individuals named by the petitioner with the offences under investigation. It also submitted that the statements of the accused and witnesses had not yielded any substantial lead implicating them.
The Court examined whether the restriction under the Prevention of Corruption Act, or the right of hearing as provided under Section 175 and 223 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 or any other statutory restrictions is an absolute mandate to issue a writ of mandamus in a writ petition filed under Article 226 seeking registration of FIR, filed before the High Court.
Reliance was placed on the Constitution Bench judgment of the Supreme Court in State of West Bengal v. Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights (2010), which recognised the constitutional courts' power to direct investigations notwithstanding statutory restrictions applicable to investigative agencies.
The Court observed that the High Court's jurisdiction under Article 226 is not restrained by other statutory provisions. Even where another law prescribes procedural requirements, including the hearing of affected persons, such requirements do not, by themselves, prevent the constitutional court from directing an investigation when the available materials satisfy it that a cognizable offence has been made out.
“Thus, as held by the Constitution Bench decision of the Apex Court the power of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot be taken away, curtailed or diluted by Section 6 of the Special Police Act. Irrespective of there being any statutory provision acting as a restriction on the powers of the Courts, the restriction imposed by Section 6 of the Special Police Act on the powers of the Union, cannot be read as restriction on the powers of the Constitutional Courts.” Court noted.
The Court further added that the non-impleadment of the persons against whom the investigation is sought for, or non-hearing of them in view of the statutory mandates, if any, as provided in any other law in force does not prevent the High Court to order an investigation against them if the Court is satisfied from the materials that the cognizable offences are made out.
The Court, however, declined to grant the specific relief sought in the case to examine the involvement of four more individuals in the case , finding that the ongoing investigation had not disclosed material indicating the involvement of the individuals whom the petitioner wanted to investigate.
The Court clarified that the investigating officer remained free to investigate the involvement of any other person if relevant material emerged.
The writ petition was accordingly disposed of.
Counsel for Petitioner: V.R. Manoranjan
Counsel for Respondents: Sreelal N. Warrier (Spl. PP - CBI), Rekha S, Roy Thomas