Tamil Nadu and Kerala have asked the Supreme Court to decide whether the Enforcement Directorate qualifies as a “juristic person” capable of independently filing writ petitions.
The issue arose after the ED approached the Kerala High Court under Article 226 claiming enforcement of its rights—prompting the State to challenge its legal standing.
The ruling could redefine the autonomy of central investigative agencies and impact Centre–State relations, particularly in politically sensitive cases.
The Supreme Court on Tuesday will examine an unusual but significant question of law: Can the Directorate of Enforcement (ED) be treated as a “juristic person”? The issue has been raised through separate petitions filed by the governments of Tamil Nadu and Kerala, both of which have faced a series of raids and legal actions by the central agency.
A juristic person is a legal fiction that allows a non-human entity—such as a company or institution—to possess rights and duties similar to those of an individual, including the ability to sue or be sued. The two States argue that the ED, being a department of the Union government, cannot claim an independent legal personality to invoke constitutional remedies.
The controversy originated in the Kerala High Court when the ED filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, seeking enforcement of what it described as its “rights” during an investigation. The State questioned the very maintainability of such a plea, asking how a government department could approach a constitutional court as if it were an aggrieved citizen.
Tamil Nadu echoed this position in a separate matter, urging the Supreme Court to deliver an authoritative ruling to prevent conflicting decisions across High Courts. Both States contend that allowing the ED to act as a juristic person would blur the constitutional distinction between the Union government and its investigative arms.
Legal experts say the outcome could have far-reaching consequences. If the ED is recognised as a juristic person, it may open the door for central agencies to independently litigate against State governments. Conversely, a negative finding could limit the agency’s procedural autonomy and reshape federal-agency relations.
The apex court’s decision is therefore expected to settle not just a technical question, but a larger debate over federal balance, accountability, and the expanding footprint of investigative agencies in India’s constitutional framework.
