Can the ED file writ petitions before Courts?

Source: The post “Can the ED file writ petitions before Courts?” has been created, based on “Can the ED file writ petitions before Courts?” published in “The Hindu” on 29th January 2026.

UPSC Syllabus: GS Paper-2- Polity

Context: India has witnessed increasing legal disputes between Central agencies and State governments in recent years. In January 2026, the Supreme Court agreed to examine whether the Enforcement Directorate can file writ petitions before constitutional courts. This issue emerged from a dispute between the ED and the Kerala government in the diplomatic gold smuggling case. The case raises important questions regarding federalism, jurisdiction, and the legal status of investigative agencies.

Background of the Case

1. In 2020, gold was smuggled into Kerala through diplomatic baggage at Thiruvananthapuram airport.
2. The National Investigation Agency and the Enforcement Directorate initiated parallel investigations under relevant laws.
3. Later, allegations were made that ED officials had coerced the accused into implicating political leaders.
4. In response, the Kerala government constituted a Commission of Inquiry in 2021 to probe these allegations.
5. The ED challenged this decision before the Kerala High Court by filing a writ petition.
6. In 2025, the High Court upheld the ED’s right to file writ petitions.
7. Kerala and Tamil Nadu subsequently challenged this ruling before the Supreme Court.

Constitutional Provisions on Writ Jurisdiction

1. Article 32 of the Constitution empowers the Supreme Court to issue writs for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights.
2. Article 226 empowers High Courts to issue writs for Fundamental Rights and for other legal purposes.
3. The five recognised writs are habeas corpus, mandamus, certiorari, prohibition, and quo warranto.
4. The exercise of writ jurisdiction is discretionary and depends on the facts of each case.
5. Article 131 gives the Supreme Court exclusive jurisdiction over disputes between the Centre and States.

Arguments of the Kerala and Tamil Nadu Governments

1. The Kerala government argued that the Enforcement Directorate is only a department of the Union government and not an independent legal entity.
2. It contended that the ED does not possess juristic personality to sue or be sued.
3. The State maintained that ED officers lack the locus standi to file writ petitions in their official capacity.
4. It argued that Centre-State disputes must be resolved only under Article 131 of the Constitution.
5. Kerala relied on a 2003 Supreme Court judgment which discouraged Centre-State litigation in High Courts.
6. Tamil Nadu supported these arguments and alleged that the ED was misusing the judicial process.

Position of the Kerala High Court

1. The Kerala High Court held that the Enforcement Directorate is a statutory body created under FEMA and PMLA.
2. It observed that ED officers exercise statutory powers granted by law.
3. The Court ruled that the absence of separate legal personality was only a technical defect.
4. It concluded that this defect could not prevent the ED from approaching High Courts under Article 226.

Key Legal Issues Involved

1. The case examines whether the Enforcement Directorate can be treated as a juristic person with the capacity to sue.
2. It considers whether ED officers can file writ petitions in their official capacity.
3. It analyses whether such disputes fall under Article 226 or Article 131.
4. It evaluates whether State governments owe any public duty to the ED.
5. It assesses whether the ED functions independently or as an arm of the Union government.

Implications of the Supreme Court’s Decision

1. If the ED is allowed to file writ petitions, Central agencies may gain greater power over State actions.
2. Such a ruling may weaken the autonomy of State governments.
3. If the ED is restricted, the federal structure and State authority will be strengthened.
4. The judgment will clarify the legal status of Central investigative agencies.
5. It will influence the future mechanism for resolving Centre-State disputes.
6. It will affect the accountability and functioning of enforcement agencies.

Way Forward

1. The government should clearly define the legal status and powers of the Enforcement Directorate through suitable legislative amendments.
2. A standard operating procedure should be framed to regulate interactions between Central agencies and State governments.
3. The Centre and States should strengthen cooperative federal mechanisms to resolve disputes through dialogue and consultation.
4. The role of Article 131 should be reinforced for resolving inter-governmental conflicts.
5. Investigative agencies should function with transparency, professionalism, and political neutrality.
6. Judicial guidelines should be evolved to prevent misuse of writ jurisdiction in federal disputes.
7. Regular institutional forums should be created to address jurisdictional conflicts between agencies and States.

Conclusion: The case involves fundamental questions about constitutional jurisdiction and federal balance. Strong investigative agencies are necessary for effective governance. However, their functioning must remain within constitutional limits. A balanced approach that respects both federal autonomy and national interests is essential. The Supreme Court’s verdict will be crucial for strengthening cooperative federalism and the rule of law in India.

Question: Can the Enforcement Directorate (ED) invoke the writ jurisdiction of High Courts under Article 226 of the Constitution? Examine the legal issues involved and discuss the implications and way forward for Centre-State relations in India.

Source: The Hindu