Can Enforcement Directorate Invoke Article 226? Supreme Court To Examine In Kerala, Tamil Nadu Petitions Against ED

The Supreme Court today (January 20) issued notice on the pleas filed by the States of Kerala and Tamil Nadu, questioning whether the Enforcement Directorate has the power to file a writ petition under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution. Notice is issued returnable within four weeks; no stay has been granted.

Both the States have filed separate petitions against the Kerala High Court's order holding that ED is a statutory authority and therefore has the power to invoke writ jurisdiction under Article 226.

Before a bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma, Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal appeared for the State of Kerala, and another counsel appeared for the State of Tamil Nadu.

At the outset, Justice Sharma remarked that the order is only interim in nature. To this, Sibal responded that it is final in the context of the State of Kerala. Sibal submitted that because of this order, the issue that the Court will have to adjudicate is whether the ED department can invoke the writ jurisdiction.

He said: "Because of this final order, the issue that mylords have to in large adjudicate is the competence of this department to file a writ petition in Article 226. Whether this would be covered by mylords decision in Chief Conservator of Forest. Article 131 and 226 interplay."

The State of Kerala has challenged the September 26, 2025, order of the division bench of the Kerala High Court, which upheld the Single Judge's interim order staying the State-appointed Inquiry Commission to probe if the ED and other central agencies are falsely implicating political leaders in the State, including its CM Pinarayi Vijayan, in the gold smuggling case.

The gold smuggling case involved the seizure of 30 Kgs gold worth Rs.14.82 Crores at the Thiruvananthapuram International Airport on July 6, 2020. It was allegedly marked as 'Diplomatic Baggage' and sent to the UAE Consulate.

During the course of the investigation, offences under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA) and Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) also came to light. Thereupon, the National Investigation Agency (NIA) and ED also registered cases. Prime accused in the case, Swapna Suresh and Sandeep Nair, were allegedly forced by the ED to sign statements implicating the CPI(M) backed Chief Minister.

The ED had filed a writ petition challenging the notification of the Inquiry Commission, headed by former HC judge Justice V.K. Mohanan.

The State had argued that ED is only a department of the Central Government and it can't invoke Article 226 jurisdiction. But the Single Judge bench observed that it is a statutory body and therefore entitled to file writ petition under Article 226.

It said: "Insofar as the Directorate of Enforcement is a statutory body, the contention that it is only a Department of the Central Government is only to be rejected. The proposition that a statutory body is entitled to file a writ petition invoking Article 226 of the Constitution cannot be doubted. In other words, the Directorate of Enforcement is certainly entitled to institute a writ petition in its name...Deputy Director of Enforcement is a statutory authority under the PML Act and in that capacity, he is certainly entitled to file a writ petition. As such, even assuming that the Directorate of Enforcement is not entitled to institute a writ petition in its name, it cannot be said that the Deputy Director of Enforcement has no locus standi to institute the writ petition."

Case Details: STATE OF KERALA AND ORS. v ENFORCEMENT DIRECTORATE AND ANR|SLP(C) No. 1479/2026

THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND ORS. v DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT|T.P.(Crl.) No. 34/2026 &

STATE OF TAMIL NADU v ENFORCEMENT DIRECTORATE AND ORS.|Diary No. 1263-2026