Can the Enforcement Directorate File Writ Petitions? — A Constitutional Test

Why in News?

• On 20 January 2026, the Supreme Court of India agreed to examine whether the Enforcement Directorate can invoke writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 32.
• The Court admitted petitions filed by Kerala Government and Tamil Nadu Government, challenging a Kerala High Court ruling permitting ED to file writ petitions.

Constitutional Background — Writ Jurisdiction in India

Articles 32 and 226

• Article 32 empowers the Supreme Court to issue writs primarily for enforcement of fundamental rights, while Article 226 grants High Courts wider authority to issue writs “for any other purpose”.

Nature of Writ Remedies

• Writs are extraordinary, discretionary remedies, issued where no efficacious alternative remedy exists, and are traditionally used to enforce public duties or correct jurisdictional errors.

Limits on Writ Jurisdiction

• Writs ordinarily do not lie against private entities, and Article 361 bars issuance of mandamus against the President or Governors for official acts.

Origin of the Controversy

Diplomatic Gold Smuggling Case

• The dispute arose from a Kerala government Commission of Inquiry into allegations of conspiracy following ED investigations in the 2020 diplomatic gold smuggling case involving ₹14.82 crore seizure.

ED’s Writ Petition

• The ED filed a writ petition before the Kerala High Court seeking mandamus and certiorari to quash the State notification constituting the inquiry commission.

Kerala Government’s Legal Objections

Locus Standi Argument

• Kerala argued that the ED is merely a department of the Union government, lacking independent juristic personality, and therefore cannot sue or be sued in its own name.

Article 131 Argument

• The State contended that disputes between the Centre and States must be adjudicated exclusively by the Supreme Court under Article 131, not through writs in High Courts.

Reliance on Precedent

• Kerala relied on the 2003 Supreme Court judgment in Chief Conservator of Forests v. Collector, discouraging Centre–State writ litigation in High Courts.

Kerala High Court Ruling (September 2025)

ED as Statutory Authority

• The High Court held that the ED is a statutory body constituted under FEMA, 1999, with officers exercising statutory powers under Sections 48 and 49 of PMLA.

Juristic Personality Not Essential

• The Court termed the lack of explicit juristic personality as a “matter of form, not substance”, insufficient to deny ED access to constitutional remedies.

Kerala and Tamil Nadu’s Case

Capacity to Sue

• The States argued that capacity to sue is a substantive legal requirement, and absence of legal personality renders writ petitions non-maintainable.

Abuse of Process Allegation

• Tamil Nadu alleged that the High Court ruling has emboldened the ED to file writ petitions against States, upsetting constitutional federal balance.

Federalism and Separation of Powers

Centre–State Balance

• Allowing ED to file writs may enable Union agencies to directly challenge State actions, bypassing Article 131’s exclusive dispute-resolution framework.

Nature of ED

• Legal experts argue the ED functions as an instrumentality of the Union, not an autonomous regulator like SEBI or RBI, limiting its independent legal standing.

Jurisdictional Precedent

Scope of Mandamus

• State governments arguably owe no independent public duty to ED, weakening the constitutional basis for mandamus or certiorari against States at ED’s instance.

Why This Case Matters ?

Long-Term Significance

• The verdict will clarify whether Union enforcement agencies can independently invoke writ jurisdiction, or must act only through Centre–State dispute mechanisms.
• The outcome will shape future Centre–State litigation, affecting investigative autonomy, cooperative federalism, and constitutional discipline in inter-governmental conflicts.