Justice Suraj Govindaraj, Karnataka High Court
No Vested Right To Choose Investigating Officer: Karnataka High Court Dismisses Plea Against ED
|The Bench noted that the constitutional courts do not entertain administrative representations relating to pending investigations through letters or e-mails addressed to the Chief Justices.
The Karnataka High Court has held that an accused or a person under investigation does not possess any legal right to nominate, choose, or demand the substitution of an investigating officer based merely on subjective apprehensions.
Dismissing a writ petition filed against the Directorate of Enforcement (ED), the Court deprecated the practice of sending representations regarding pending probes to constitutional functionaries, including the Chief Justice of India, and imposed costs of ₹1,00,000 on the petitioner.
A Single Judge Bench comprising Justice Suraj Govindaraj observed, “…Unless a clear case of mala fides, demonstrable bias, lack of jurisdiction or abuse of process is made out before a competent Court, the person under investigation cannot insist that the investigation should be conducted by an officer of his choice or seek the recusal of the Investigating Officer as a matter of right”.
“The constitutional courts do not entertain administrative representations relating to pending investigations through letters or e-mails addressed to the Hon'ble Chief Justices. Judicial intervention can be sought only by invoking the jurisdiction of the competent Court in accordance with the procedure established by law. Addressing representations concerning pending investigations to constitutional authorities who are neither the statutory decisionmakers nor otherwise concerned with the conduct of the investigation serves no legitimate legal purpose and has the potential of creating an impression that an attempt is being made to secure intervention through channels outside the judicial process”, it noted further.
Senior Advocate Sandesh J. Chouta appeared for the petitioner and Anuparna Bordoloi, ASG appeared for the respondent.
The petitioner, Fair Vakkayil John, approached the High Court seeking a writ of mandamus to direct ED authorities to replace Assistant Director Sunil Kumar Sinhmar, the Investigating Officer (IO) conducting an inquiry under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) pursuant to summons dated July 9, 2026.
Claiming a "reasonable apprehension" that the IO was biased and prejudiced, the petitioner had submitted a representation dated July 25, 2026, to the Director and Chief Vigilance Officer of the ED, requesting that the probe be handed over to an independent officer.
Crucially, the petitioner also marked copies of the representation to several constitutional functionaries and high-ranking officials, including: The Chief Justice of India (CJI), Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court, Union Minister of Finance, the Secretary, Department of Financial Services, official email addresses of the Supreme Court and Delhi High Court
Additionally, the petitioner sought directions to airport authorities to preserve CCTV footage from Kempegowda International Airport relating to an incident on April 17–18, 2026.
The Court took strong exception to the petitioner sending email representations to the CJI, High Court Chief Justices, and Union Ministers during an ongoing investigation.
Regarding the prayer to secure airport CCTV footage, counsel appearing for Bangalore International Airport Limited (BIAL) submitted that as per standard policy, surveillance footage is retained only for 30 days and automatically overwritten thereafter. As the footage for April 17–18, 2026 was no longer available, the Court recorded the submission.
While observing that such conduct deserved exemplary costs, the Court refrained from imposing a heavier penalty and directed the petitioner to pay ₹1,00,000/- to the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority (KSLSA) within 15 days. The Court warned that any future repetition of such conduct would invite severe consequences.
Cause Title: Fair Vakkayil John v. Union Of India & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2026:KHC:41344)
Appearances:
Petitioner: Sandesh J. Chouta., Sr. Counsel, Mahesh, Advocate.
Respondent: Anuparna Bordoloi, ASG, Manu Kulkarni, J. Hudson Samuel, Advocates.