Case at a Glance
The Kerala Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau registered a bribery case in May 2025 in which an Assistant Director of the Enforcement Directorate’s Kochi Zonal Office was alleged to have demanded ₹2 crore to settle a case. A news editor sought a mandamus directing the CBI and the VACB to investigate four more persons, including an ED Deputy Director. The Kerala High Court held that the High Court’s power under Article 226 to order an investigation “cannot be taken away, curtailed or diluted by Section 6” of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act. But since the investigation had not disclosed any material against the four, it declined the relief, leaving the investigating officer free to probe anyone else involved.
On 15.05.2025 the VACB, Ernakulam registered a case under Section 7(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Section 61(2) of the BNS. The first accused, an Assistant Director of the ED’s Kochi Zonal Office, allegedly demanded a bribe of ₹2 crore to settle a case; an alleged intermediary was caught in a trap accepting ₹2 lakh; a hawala agent and a chartered accountant were also arrayed as accused.
The petitioner, M.R. Ajayan, described as the editor of Green Kerala News, had sent representations alleging that four other persons — including a Deputy Director of the ED — were involved in hawala transactions, financial irregularities and undue interference in official enquiries. He sought a writ of mandamus directing the CBI and the Superintendent of Police, VACB to include and investigate them. The VACB stated that nothing in the investigation so far linked those four persons to the offences. The CBI had not received instructions by the time of judgment, and the persons named were not impleaded.
The Key Question Before the Court
Do statutory restrictions such as Section 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, or procedural requirements under the PC Act and BNSS, limit the High Court’s power under Article 226 to direct an investigation — and should such a direction issue here?
Power Affirmed, Relief Declined
Relying on the Constitution Bench in State of West Bengal v. Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights, West Bengal, (2010) 02 SC CK 0028, (2010) 3 SCC 571, the Court held that “The power of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot be taken away, curtailed or diluted by Section 6” of the DSPE Act, since “no Act of Parliament can exclude or curtail the powers of the Constitutional Courts”. It also referred to Manohar Lal Sharma v. Principal Secretary, (2013) 12 SC CK 0016, (2014) 2 SCC 532, and held that the non-impleadment of the persons against whom investigation is sought is not, by itself, a bar to ordering an investigation.
At the same time, the Court cautioned — quoting an earlier decision — that “an order of CBI investigation or enquiry should not be passed in routine manner on mere allegations”. On the facts, it found that “the investigation has not yet disclosed any material indicating the involvement of the persons” named by the petitioner. It therefore did not direct their inclusion, but clarified that “the investigating officer is free to investigate the involvement of any other persons in this crime”, and disposed of the writ petition.
What the Court Actually Held
- Section 6 of the DSPE Act and similar statutory restrictions cannot curtail the High Court’s power under Article 226 to order an investigation.
- Non-impleadment of the persons sought to be investigated is not by itself a bar to such a direction.
- CBI or other investigation should not be ordered routinely on mere allegations.
- As the investigation had disclosed no material against the four persons, the relief was declined, with the investigating officer free to probe any other person involved.
Why This Judgment Matters
- It restates the constitutional limits on statutory bars to court-ordered investigations, including into officials of central agencies.
- It balances that power against the need for material before courts direct investigation of named individuals.
- It concerns a high-profile corruption case involving officials of the Enforcement Directorate’s Kochi office.
What Should Advocates Take Away From the Judgment?
For Complainants & Whistleblowers
- The High Court can direct investigation despite statutory consent requirements, but you must place material, not just allegations.
- Representations to the agency should be specific and supported.
- The investigating officer can still look into others if material emerges.
For Counsel
- Cite Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights on Article 226 and Section 6 DSPE Act.
- Non-impleadment of proposed accused is not fatal, but prima facie material is decisive.
- Expect courts to defer to an ongoing investigation that has found no link to the named persons.
Key Takeaways
- Article 226 powers to order investigation cannot be diluted by Section 6 DSPE Act.
- Courts will not order investigation of named persons on mere allegations.
- No material was found against the four persons the petitioner named.
- The investigation into the ED Kochi bribery case continues, open to all involved.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the ED Kochi bribery case?
A VACB case registered in May 2025 under Section 7(a) of the PC Act and Section 61(2) BNS, alleging that an Assistant Director of the ED’s Kochi Zonal Office demanded ₹2 crore to settle a case, with an alleged intermediary caught accepting ₹2 lakh.
Did the Kerala High Court order a CBI probe into four more persons?
No. It held it had the power to do so, but declined because the investigation had not disclosed any material indicating their involvement.
Does Section 6 of the DSPE Act limit the High Court?
No. Following the Constitution Bench, the Court held the High Court’s Article 226 power cannot be taken away, curtailed or diluted by Section 6.
Conclusion
M.R. Ajayan v. Director, CBI draws a familiar but important distinction: the High Court’s constitutional power to order an investigation is undiminished by statute, but its exercise depends on material, not suspicion.
Practical takeaway: When seeking a court-directed probe against additional persons, support the petition with concrete material linking them to the offence — the power exists, but it is used sparingly.
For more judgments, legal opinions and case analysis, visit courtkutchehry.com