In a legal development that could redefine the boundaries of federalism and administrative law in India, the Supreme Court has set out to examine a fundamental constitutional question: Is the Enforcement Directorate (ED) a "juristic person" entitled to file a writ petition under Article 226?

The matter reached the apex court following challenges raised by the State Governments of Kerala and Tamil Nadu. Both states have questioned the maintainability of writ petitions filed by a central investigating agency against the actions of a state government.

Article 226 of the Constitution empowers High Courts to issue writs for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights (Part III) or for "any other purpose." Traditionally, this is seen as a remedy for citizens or legal entities against the State.

The crux of the current dispute lies in whether a department of the Union Government—specifically the ED—can claim to have "rights" that need enforcement against a State Government through this constitutional route.

The immediate trigger for this scrutiny was an order passed by the Kerala High Court on September 26, 2025. The High Court had upheld the ED’s "locus standi" (legal standing) to challenge a judicial inquiry ordered by the Kerala government.

The Case Timeline:

May 2021: The Kerala Government appointed a Commission of Inquiry, led by retired Justice VK Mohanan, to investigate allegations that central agencies (ED and Customs) were attempting to falsely implicate Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan in the high-profile UAE gold smuggling case.
ED’s Move: The ED moved the High Court to quash the state’s notification, arguing that a state-ordered inquiry into a central agency’s investigation was "malafide" and an affront to federalism.
The Stay: A single-judge bench stayed the inquiry in 2021, observing that a commission (which is a fact-finding body) should not run parallel to criminal proceedings under the PMLA, as it could derail justice.
September 2025: A Division Bench of the Kerala High Court dismissed the State's appeal, confirming that the ED did indeed have the right to file a writ petition to protect its investigative domain.

The Supreme Court, through a bench comprising Justices Dipankar Datta and Satish Chandra Sharma, has now issued notice to the ED.

Tamil Nadu, represented by Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, joined the fray, noting that the Kerala verdict would impact its own ongoing legal battles. In Tamil Nadu, the ED has invoked writ jurisdiction in matters related to sand mining, seeking a "mandamus" (a court direction) to register cases.

The Arguments Against the ED:

Not a Juristic Person: The states argue that the ED is merely a department under the Ministry of Finance. Unlike the CBI, which is often viewed as having a distinct statutory character, the ED is seen as part and parcel of the Government of India. Therefore, it is argued that it cannot be a "juristic person" with its own set of fundamental or legal rights to enforce under Article 226.
Article 131 vs. Article 226: The states contend that if there is a dispute between the Center (or its agency) and a State, the only proper forum is the Supreme Court under Article 131, which provides for original and exclusive jurisdiction for inter-state or Center-State disputes.
The Nature of Article 32 and 226: During a similar hearing involving West Bengal, the state government argued that Article 32 (and by extension Article 226) is a remedy for individuals against the government, not for government agencies to use against other government bodies.

This case is about more than just the gold smuggling case or mining disputes; it is about the Federal Structure of India.

Investigative Overlap: If the ED can sue a State Government in a High Court, it sets a precedent for central agencies to bypass the Supreme Court's exclusive jurisdiction in Center-State disputes.
Defining "Person": The Court must decide if "person" under Article 226 includes a central agency. If the answer is yes, it opens the door for various government departments to sue each other across different High Courts.
The "Parallel Inquiry" Doctrine: The Kerala High Court’s view was that a state cannot use the Commissions of Inquiry Act to interfere with a central investigation under the PMLA. The Supreme Court will have to balance the State's right to inquire into administrative overreach versus the Center's right to conduct unhindered criminal probes.

The Supreme Court's decision will provide much-needed clarity on the "legal personality" of investigating agencies. If the Court finds that the ED lacks the locus to file writs, it could significantly curtail the agency's ability to challenge state-led pushbacks in regional High Courts. Conversely, upholding the ED's right would empower central agencies to protect their investigations from state-sponsored inquiries through the writ route.

As the apex court prepares to examine these "substantial questions of law," the legal community awaits a verdict that will undoubtedly become a cornerstone of Indian constitutional jurisprudence.