ECIR Can Be Challenged Under Article 226, ED Can't Take Shelter Behind 'Internal Document' Label: Karnataka High Court

The Karnataka High Court on Wednesday (August 5) held that an Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR) can be challenged under Article 226 of the Constitution and that the Enforcement Directorate (ED) cannot place it beyond judicial scrutiny by merely describing it as an "internal administrative document". [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 281]“….The constitutional jurisdiction under Article 226 is neither subservient to statutory classifications nor susceptible to being curtailed by administrative terminology. The power of judicial review is part of the basic structure of the Constitution. It cannot be rendered illusory merely because the foundational document is nomenclatured as an ECIR, instead of an FIR….”, the court said.The single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna made the observations while hearing a plea filed by faming company Gameskraft Technologies.“…The label attached to a proceeding cannot eclipse its true character. Substance must always prevail over nomenclature. If the consequences are coercive, the scrutiny must be constitutional. If liberty, property and reputation stand imperilled, judicial review cannot be denied at the threshold on a plea of semantics”, the court observed.The Enforcement Directorate had raised a preliminary objection, contending that the challenge to an ECIR is misconceived since an ECIR is neither a statutory creation nor a document recognised under the CrPC. The central probe agency argued that ECIR is an internal administrative record maintained by the Directorate to facilitate its inquiry under the PMLA. Therefore, it was contended, a petition under Article 226 read with Section 482 of CrPC seeking to assail such an internal document is not entertainable.“…An ECIR, though branded as an 'internal administrative document', authorises search, seizure, attachment of property, deprivation of liberty, arrest under one of the most stringent penal statutes in the country and prosecution carrying grave consequences. To describe such a document as merely administrative, yet simultaneously permit it to unleash the full coercive apparatus of the criminal law, is to embrace a contradiction that constitutional adjudication cannot countenance”, the court clarified, disagreeing with the contentions of ED.The court, for the first time, also clarified that a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution read with Section 482 of CrPC challenging an ECIR is perfectly maintainable. It said that previous High Court judgments which held otherwise had only examined the maintainability of petitions under Section 482, and not writ petitions under Article 226.The court pointed out that while the Madras, Orissa, and Punjab & Haryana High Courts had held that an ECIR cannot be challenged under Section 482 CrPC, none of those judgments examined the maintainability of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.“…The form of the document can never eclipse its consequences; nor can nomenclature outweigh substance when the liberty of an individual and the majesty of justice are at stake…. Crime constitutes the genesis; proceeds of crime constitute its consequence. One cannot exist in the absence of the other. The entire architecture of the PMLA is erected upon the existence of criminal activity generating proceeds of crime. Therefore, if the predicate offence itself ceases to exist—whether by discharge, acquittal or acceptance of a closure report—the superstructure erected upon such foundation cannot survive”, the court said further.In a connected matter, the court has also held that a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution read with Section 482 CrPC, challenging Enforcement Directorate's search and freezing action under Section 17(1A) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) is maintainable.The petitioners-Gameskraft Technologies Private Limited and Nirdesa Network Private Limited-had challenged the registration of ECIR No. ECIR/BGZO/29/2025 dated November 11, 2025, and all consequential proceedings.The matter arose after a complaint was lodged on December 5, 2024, culminating in registration of Crime No. 722 of 2024 for offences under Section 318(2) of BNS and Section 66 of the IT Act. Upon investigation, the police filed a 'B' report concluding that no material existed warranting prosecution. The jurisdictional Court accepted the 'B' report, and the order attained finality.Nearly six months later, the Directorate of Enforcement registered the impugned ECIR, proceeded with search and seizure operations, and instituted proceedings before the Adjudicating Authority under Section 17(4) of the PMLA seeking retention of seized records and properties. Hence, the court concluded as below in today's order:“…This Court, therefore, holds without the slightest hesitation that a writ petition invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. is maintainable to examine the legality of an ECIR and every consequential action founded thereon. The...

ECIR Can Be Challenged Under Article 226, ED Can't Take Shelter Behind 'Internal Document' Label: Karnataka High Court

Sebin James

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Sebin James

ECIR Can Be Challenged Under Article 226, ED Can't Take Shelter Behind 'Internal Document' Label: Karnataka High Court

Sebin James

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Sebin James

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers