Supreme Court Upholds High Court’s Order Permitting CBI Preliminary Enquiry Against Pastor Ankur Narula In PIL About Religious Conversion

The Court declined to interfere with an interim order of the High Court which had permitted the Enforcement Directorate to share two sealed-cover reports with the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and had granted liberty to the CBI to conduct a preliminary enquiry in a PIL against Pastor Ankur Yoseph Narula and his wife, Sonia Narula.

The Court, however, requested the High Court to hear the parties and decide the objection regarding the locus of the PIL petitioner before examining the merits of the matter.

The Bench, comprising Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe ordered, “We are not inclined to interfere with the interim order passed by the High Court. However, we request the High Court to hear the parties and to decide the objection with regard to the locus of respondent no. 1 to file a Public Interest Litigation and thereafter to examine the merits of the matter. 5. It is clarified that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter.”

Senior Advocates Mukul Rohatgi and Abhishek Manu Singhvi appeared for the Petitioners, while Solicitor General Tushar Mehta and Senior Advocate Mohan Rao appeared for the Respondents

The PIL raised allegations concerning religious conversions, healing advertisements, foreign missionaries, FCRA, money laundering, construction, GST, social-media activity and political influence. It sought investigations by the Enforcement Directorate and the CBI, freezing of bank accounts, attachment of properties, restraint upon construction and deactivation of social-media accounts.

An FIR was also registered against Respondent No. 1 under Sections 285, 223 and 196(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The FIR is relied upon only as part of the pre-existing adversarial background and the chronology bearing upon motive, candour and bona fides; it is not pleaded as an automatic disqualification from maintaining a PIL. Subsequently, he addressed a representation to the Enforcement Directorate alleging foreign funding and money-laundering activities against the petitioners.

Respondent No. 1 was arrested and released on bail by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jalandhar. Thereafter, instituted the PIL within thirteen days thereof.

The Enforcement Directorate filed a status report in sealed cover, and the High Court observed that it would be open for the investigating agencies to examine the issues raised.

The Division Bench of the High Court had perused a further sealed-cover report in Chambers. Without commenting upon the merits, the High Court permitted the Enforcement Directorate to share both reports with the CBI in a sealed envelope. It granted liberty to the CBI to conduct a preliminary enquiry and submit its report in sealed cover. The High Court also restrained the parties from sharing the proceedings with the media and listed the matter for a further date.

Challenging the said order, the Petitioners filed the present SLP. They also contended that the impugned order identified no cognizable offence, suspected transaction, role attributable to them or scope of enquiry, and recorded neither any failure of the existing agencies nor any prima facie case warranting recourse to the CBI.

It averred, “The disclosed official record does not support a CBI process. Respondent Nos. 3 to 7 placed on record the police enquiry, which found no cogent evidence, particulars of any alleged victim or witness, or material disclosing any cognizable offence. No alleged victim came forward, and the complaint was consigned to the record on 16.04.2026. More significantly, Respondent No. 9-CBI stated on affidavit that no exceptional circumstance requiring its intervention, failure or bias of the State machinery, national or inter-State ramifications, or involvement of Central Government officials had been shown. The CBI accordingly opposed the relief seeking investigation by it. The remaining departmental replies likewise record no concluded violation against the Petitioners.”

On maintainability, the petitioners contended that the threshold scrutiny of the PIL petitioner’s credentials and bona fides remained unperformed.

The Plea, filed by AOR Siddharth Batra also argued, “The Petitioners are also challenging the operative use of sealed cover material. They have received neither report, a redacted copy, nor a meaningful gist identifying the offence, transaction, statutory provision or conduct under scrutiny. They can answer the PIL, but not the undisclosed material that produced the impugned consequence. No claim of privilege or public-interest immunity has been adjudicated, reason for complete nondisclosure recorded, or less restrictive alternative considered.”

It was also argued that the High Court had overridden the independent discretion of the investigating authorities. By way of interim relief, the petitioners sought a stay of all further proceedings in the PIL qua them, while clarifying that they did not seek immunity from any investigation lawfully commenced by a competent authority.

The Plea submitted, “Despite this record, on 05.08.2026 the Hon’ble High Court perused an Enforcement Directorate report in sealed cover and permitted the investigating agencies to examine the issues raised therein. On 27.08.2026, after perusing a further sealed-cover report, the Hon’ble High Court directed both reports to be transmitted to the CBI, granted liberty to conduct a preliminary enquiry and required the CBI to submit its report in sealed cover. The order neither rejects the police enquiry nor records any reason for departing from the CBI’s own stand. A central agency which E opposed its involvement has thus been drawn into a continuing courtmonitored process on the basis of material withheld from the persons directly affected.”

The Supreme Court stated that it was not inclined to interfere with the interim order passed by the High Court. It, however, requested the High Court to hear the parties and decide the objection with regard to the locus of Respondent No. 1 to file a PIL, and thereafter to examine the merits of the matter.

The Court clarified that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits. With these observations, the Special Leave Petition was disposed of.

Cause Title: Ankur Yoseph Narula & Anr. v. Tejasvi Minhas & Ors. [SLP (C) No. 31685 of 2026]

Appearances:

Petitioners: Sr. Adv. Mukul Rohatgi, Sr. Adv. Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, AOR Siddharth Batra, Adv. Ranjeeta Rohtagi, Adv. Edward Augustine George, Adv. Stephan Masih, Adv. Gunjeet Singh Syal, Adv. Chinmay Dubey, Adv. Shivani Chawla, Adv. Akshit Lunial, Adv. Mehul Gulati, Adv. Jyoti Aggarwal, Adv. Pradeep Shekhawat, Adv. Sanjivani Aggarwal, Adv. Swaraj Swarup Aggarwal

Respondents: Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, A.S.G. Suryaprakash V. Raju, Advocate General Maninderjit Singh Bedi, A.A.G. Rajat Bhardwaj, Sr. Adv. Mohan Rao, Sr. Adv. Zoheb Hossain, Sr. Adv. Nachiketa Joshi, Sr. Adv. Guru Krishna Kumar, AOR Pushkar Sharma, AOR Karan Sharma, AOR Amrish Kumar, AOR Arvind Kumar Sharma, AOR Shreekant Neelappa Terdal, AOR Apoorva Singhal, AOR Abiha Zaidi, AOR Yashraj Singh Bundela, Adv. Akshit Chauhan, Adv. Nikita Verma, Adv. Vinod Kumar, Adv. Sahil Malik, Adv. Vikrant Bhardwaj, Adv. Annam Venkatesh, Adv. Hitarth Raja, Adv. Vivek Gurnani, Adv. Bhuvan Kapoor, Adv. Anmol Chandan, Adv. Suryodaya Prakash Tiwari, Adv. Dr. Arun Kumar Yadav, Adv. B.L.N. Sanjit, Adv. Prerna Dhall, Adv. Eklabhya Dwivedi, Adv. Aman Mehta, Adv. Sanchar Anand, Adv. Dr. Ravinder Kumar Anand, Adv. Rajat Rathee, Adv. Aman Kumar Thakur, Adv. Aditya Kumar, Adv. Apar Gupta, Adv. Pragya Jain, Adv. Yashpriya Sahran, Adv. Sahil Mander, Adv. Pritam Raman Giriya, Adv. Divyangi Gupta, Adv. Aryan Sarawgi, Adv. Ronit Rampuriya, Adv. Arpit Garg

Click here to read/download the Order