The Karnataka High Court has held that a person under investigation has no vested right to choose, nominate, or seek the substitution of an Investigating Officer based on subjective apprehensions of bias.

The Court, accordingly, rejected the prayer seeking substitution of the probing officer and imposed costs of Rs. 1 lakh on the petitioner for forwarding his representation relating to pending investigation to constitutional authorities, including the Chief Justice of India.

“Unless a clear case of mala fides, demonstrable bias, lack of jurisdiction or abuse of process is made out before a competent Court, the person under investigation cannot insist that the investigation should be conducted by an officer of his choice or seek the recusal of the Investigating Officer as a matter of right,” Justice Suraj Govindaraj said.

The Court noted that the petitioner has produced no material which could prima facie justify an inference that the investigation is actuated by mala fides or that the Investigating Officer has disabled himself from conducting a fair investigation.

“Mere apprehension or dissatisfaction on the part of the petitioner, howsoever strongly expressed, cannot by itself constitute a legal ground for directing substitution of the Investigating Officer,” the Court held.

The Court rejected the petitioner's prayer to substitute the Investigating Officer.

“In the absence of any cogent material demonstrating bias, mala fides or any legal infirmity in the investigation, no direction can be issued requiring the Directorate of Enforcement to substitute the Investigating Officer. The said prayer is, accordingly, rejected,” the Court held.

The Court also took objection to the petitioner's method of raising his grievance— which included emailing and posting copies of representation seeking recusal of the Investigating Officer to the competent authority in Directorate of Enforcement as well as to the Union Finance Minister, the Chief Justice of India, and the Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court, among others. It noted that such actions undermine the institutional discipline.

“Addressing representations concerning pending investigations to constitutional authorities who are neither the statutory decision makers nor otherwise concerned with the conduct of the investigation serves no legitimate legal purpose and has the potential of creating an impression that an attempt is being made to secure intervention through channels outside the judicial process,” the Court said.

The Court, therefore, deprecated the petitioner's conduct and said that such a practice “deserves to be strongly discouraged.” It imposed costs of Rupees one lakh on the petitioner, while making it clear that repetition of such conduct could invite appropriate consequences, including exemplary costs.

Background

The petitioner, Fair Vakkayil John, approached the High Court seeking multiple reliefs, including a mandamus directing the Directorate of Enforcement (ED) to consider his representation dated July 25, 2026, seeking substitution of the Investigating Officer.

The petitioner submitted that he had a reasonable apprehension that the Investigating Officer was biased against him, which could lead to an unfair and partial investigation. He sought recusal of the Investigating Officer.

Case: FAIR VAKKAYIL JOHN vs UNION OF INDIA & others, WRIT PETITION NO.24293 OF 2026 (GM-RES)

Click Here To Read/Download Order