Power Under Article 226 Constitution To Order Investigation Is In No Way Restrained By Any Other Statutory Provisions: Kerala High Court
The Court noted that the investigation had not, as of now, disclosed material indicating their involvement, while leaving the investigating officer free to probe any other person if material emerges.
Justice A. Badharudeen, Kerala High Court
The Kerala High Court has held that the High Court, while exercising power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is “in no way” restrained by any other statutory provision. It observed that non-impleadment of the persons against whom an investigation is sought, or their non-hearing under statutory mandates, is not a bar to ordering an investigation once the Court is satisfied that a cognizable offence is made out.
The Court, nevertheless, declined to direct that the investigation into a bribery case against Enforcement Directorate officials be extended to four named persons. It noted that the investigation had not, as of now, disclosed material indicating their involvement, while leaving the investigating officer free to probe any other person if material emerges.
A Single Bench of Justice A. Badharudeen observed, “…the High Court exercising power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, in no way, to be restrained by any other statutory provisions. Therefore, non-impleadment of the so called persons against whom the investigation is sought for, or nonhearing of them in view of the statutory mandates, if any, as provided in any other law in force, not at all a rider for the High Court to order an investigation, once the High Court satisfies from the materials available before the Court that cognizable offence or offences made out, warranting investigation and registration of FIR”.
“…the power of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot be taken away, curtailed or diluted by Section 6 of the Special Police Act. Irrespective of there being any statutory provision acting as a restriction on the powers of the Courts, the restriction imposed by Section 6 of the Special Police Act on the powers of the Union, cannot be read as restriction on the powers of the Constitutional Courts”, the Bench noted further.
Advocate V.R. Manoranjan appeared for the petitioner and Sreelal N. Warrier, Special Public Prosecutor appeared for the respondent.
The petitioner, M. R. Ajayan, editor of Green Kerala News, sought a mandamus directing the Director of the CBI and the Superintendent of Police, VACB, to investigate P.M.A. Sameer, Renu Gopinath, Adv. Mohammed Shah and ED Deputy Director Vikas C. Mehta in a vigilance case. That case was registered on May 15, 2025 under Section 7(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Section 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. It alleges that an ED Assistant Director demanded ₹2 crore through an intermediary, who was caught in a trap accepting ₹2 lakh. A hawala agent and a chartered accountant were later arrested.
In its statement, the VACB submitted that the case is confined to the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification and the related conspiracy. It said no tangible connection had emerged with the persons named. It added that one of the petitioner’s representations, dated May 30, 2025, was never received, while the other, dated March 23, 2026, was received on March 24 and forwarded to the VACB Director on March 25. The Court noted that although instructions were called for from the CBI Director, none had been received. It heard the parties on October 16, 2026.
The Court framed two questions: whether Article 226 jurisdiction is restrained by statutory provisions, and whether the Prevention of Corruption Act restrictions or the hearing requirements under Sections 175 and 223 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 are an absolute mandate before a mandamus can issue. Relying on the Constitution Bench in State of West Bengal v. Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights [(2010) 3 SCC 571], it held that judicial review is part of the basic structure and that Section 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act cannot curtail the constitutional courts’ power. It noted that this view was followed in Manohar Lal Sharma v. Principal Secretary [(2014) 2 SCC 532]. It also cited Legislative Council UP Lucknow v. Sushil Kumar (2025 KHC OnLine 6877) for the caution that such power must be exercised “sparingly, cautiously” and only in exceptional situations.
The Court held that the reliefs could not be allowed “as of now” and disposed of the petition, leaving the investigating officer free to investigate any other person on getting material.
Cause Title: M. R. Ajayan v. The Director, CBI & Anr. (Neutral Citation 2026:KER:81401)
Appearances:
Petitioner: Adv. V.R. Manoranjan for the petitioner
Respondent: Sreelal N. Warrier, Special Public Prosecutor, Advocate Rekha S., Senior Public Prosecutor Roy Thomas.