Supreme Court decides to examine query by T.N., Kerala, if ED is a ‘juristic person’ Published - January 20, 2026
Both States want to know if the Central agency, like a ‘natural person’, can approach High Court to enforce rights under Article 226
The Supreme Court on Tuesday (January 20, 2026) decided to examine petitions filed by the States of Kerala and Tamil Nadu asking if the Directorate of Enforcement (ED), a Central agency, is a “juristic person” who can approach High Courts for enforcement of its “rights”.
A ‘juristic’ person is a legal fiction by which a non-human, like an incorporated company, is recognised to have rights, duties, sue or be sued like a ‘natural’ person.
A Bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Satish Chandra Sharma took serious note of the question of law raised by the States, which have been riddled by ED raids and legal actions in recent times. The Bench issued notice to the ED, posting the case for hearing after four weeks.
Kerala said the ED cannot consider itself a “person” but is only a statutory creation.
The train of events began with the ED filing a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution before the Kerala High Court. The agency had challenged a notification issued by the State in May 2021 setting up a Commission of Inquiry (CoI) to investigate an audio clip and a letter from two accused persons in the gold smuggling case. The duo had alleged that ED officials were coaxing them to implicate persons holding high offices in the State. The State government had tasked the Inquiry Commission to probe if there was a conspiracy afoot against the State’s political leaders and, if so, to unearth the identity of those behind the plot.
Hand in hand
On hearing of Kerala’s cause, Tamil Nadu has joined ranks with its neighbour in the Supreme Court.
Tamil Nadu accused ED of indulging in a “gross and blatant abuse of the process of law by invoking the writ jurisdiction of the Madras High Court seeking mandamus for registration of a case relating to the alleged illegal mining”. It argued that the ED’s writs in the High Court were “misconceived and unmaintainable”.
Both States want the Supreme Court to decide the question of law authoritatively.
“A statutory body can exercise only the power conferred by the relevant statute and all statutory bodies need not be body corporate with power to sue. Only a body corporate, with power to sue specifically conferred by the statute, can claim legal status or juristic person, which the Enforcement Directorate admittedly does not have. The Deputy Director of Enforcement is only an officer under the Directorate of Enforcement and is not a juristic person,” Kerala argued in the top court.
The State submitted that the Deputy Director of ED was only an officer and not a juristic person. “Hence, he also could not have filed a writ petition. Therefore, the finding of the High Court that the Deputy Director of Enforcement has locus standi to institute the writ petition is erroneous... Neither the provisions of the Foreign Exchange Management Act nor that of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act constituted any character or right in law to entitle the ED to be recognised as one clothed with legal personality to be treated as a juristic person eligible in law to sue,” the Kerala petition contended.
Both the States referred to the Supreme Court judgment in the case law, Chief Conservator of Forests, Government of Andhra Pradesh versus Collector, which held that whether a legal entity — a natural person or an artificial person — could sue or be sued in his/its own name in a court of law or a tribunal was not merely a procedural formality and was essentially a matter of substance and considerable significance.
No comments:
Post a Comment