The Supreme Court declined to entertain a writ petition filed by Samajwadi Party leader Azam Khan challenging his arrest by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) in a fresh case under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA).

The Court directed the Registry to transfer the petition's original record to the Allahabad High Court and requested that it list the matter before a Division Bench on November 16, 2026.

On November 2, 2026, the Court agreed to list the matter within a week.

The Bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi ordered, "It seems to us that the app It seems to us that the appropriate course for the petition would be, firstly, to approach the jurisdictional High Court, and in order to expedite the hearing before the High Court, we direct the registry to transfer the original record of this petition to the jurisdictional high court. The Record must be transferred within two days. The Registrar General of the Allahabad High Court is directed to put the matter before the appropriate jurisdictional authority of the High Court, even if there are vacations, and obtain appropriate orders for listing of the matter before the Division Bench of the High Court on November 16, 2026. Liberty is granted to file amended prayers and additional documents, if so advised. We have not expressed any opinion on merits. All contentions are kept open."


Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal appeared for Khan, while ASG SV Raju appeared for the ED

Sibal submitted that the High Court had been granting relief at every stage. The Bench observed that the High Court was the appropriate forum, that the liberty granted to the petitioner had also emanated from the High Court, and that this Court would request the High Court to grant an out-of-turn hearing.

Sibal submitted that his concern was not to devalue the High Courts, and he requested five minutes to place the history of the matter before the Court.

Sibal submitted that 26 FIRs had been lodged against the petitioner in 2019 in respect of alleged incidents of 2006. He stated that the petitioner had obtained bail in all of them but remained incarcerated from 2023 to 2025. According to him, this was done to ensure that the petitioner remained in custody before the elections.

He further submitted that, in all, 87 FIRs had been registered against the petitioner, and that bail had been granted in all of them. When an 88th FIR was lodged, the matter reached a three-judge Bench of this Court, which granted bail by invoking Article 142 of the Constitution. The Bench remarked that bail had not been granted in all cases but in most of them.

Sibal submitted that the State thereafter initiated three fresh proceedings, alleging forgery of the birth certificate, forgery of the PAN card on the basis of that certificate, and forgery of the passport on the basis of the PAN card.

Justice Bagchi remarked, “Two new FIRs were registered. The first ECIR was in respect of alleged extortion. What is the extortion? Land was extorted from farmers for your university. Now that is, as you rightly said, of 2006, with FIRs in 2019. It would be pleaded, maybe because of your supervening influence, that the FIRs did not come into being... but be that as it may, there is a substantial passage of time, right? Now, that ECIR came into being in 2019, and its fulcrum is extortion. In the course of this ECIR, they went on investigating, and it appears that the nub of their material is some income tax proceedings, where they found substantial funds which have not been accounted for, which relate to the management of the university, which was the beneficiary of this extortion racket.”

It was added, “Then there is an FIR... You were arrested, you continued in jail, and you were given bail by this Court. When you were almost on the penultimate lap of getting liberty, around 8th September, the economic wing of the State Government lodged an FIR with regard to misappropriation of Haj Committee funds. That inquiry started two years ago. Now what happens is, this is not the trigger. The trigger is the mismanagement of funds of the university. Your main argument is that this is malafide. This is malafide because there was nothing to do with mismanagement of funds, and this mismanagement of funds is of a university which is in your control, and there is no allegation from any quarter. This becomes the next predicate offence.”

On Sunday, a special Ghaziabad court sent Khan to judicial custody for 14 days. The SP veteran, 78, was produced before the special Ghaziabad court in connection with the money laundering case related to the Jauhar Trust, Khan's lawyer had said.

Earlier, Khan was brought to the Court under heavy security as scores of his supporters stood outside the premises to catch a glimpse of their leader, who has been battling a series of legal cases filed against him over the past few years.

The ED arrested Khan on October 31 in the money laundering case shortly after he and his son Abdullah Azam Khan were released from Rampur jail on bail in an alleged dual PAN card case. The ED has registered the money laundering case against Khan and others, taking cognisance of 58 FIRs registered by the Uttar Pradesh Police against him and his alleged associates.

The agency on October 28 said it attached the land and buildings of Khan's Mohammad Ali Jauhar University in Rampur under the anti-money laundering law. The assets have a current market value of Rs 1,170 crore. The agency alleged that government funds meant for public works were diverted to construct the private university.

It accused Khan of using his influence as the state's cabinet minister for urban development and the Uttar Pradesh Jal Nigam to facilitate the alleged irregularities.

The Rampur Development Authority had ordered the demolition of 38 buildings on the university campus in July, following which the university filed an appeal. The ED had conducted raids in the case in August and also questioned Khan. Khan has also been facing various criminal cases.

The Allahabad High Court had also granted bail to Azam Khan, his wife and his son, accused of acquiring fake birth certificates for personal gain.

Cause Title: Mohd. Azam Khan v. Directorate of Enforcement & Ors. [W.P.(Crl.) No. 461/2026]

Tags: