M. R. AJAYAN vs THE DIRECTOR
- Court
- Kerala High Court
CNR : KLHC010263922026
2026:KER:81401
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. BADHARUDEEN
TH
SATURDAY, THE 24 DAY OF OCTOBER 2026/2ND KARTHIKA, 1948
WP(CRL.) NO. 570 OF 2026
PETITIONER:
M. R. AJAYAN
AGED 61 YEARS
S/O M. K.RAGHU, EDITOR, GREEN KERALA NEWS,
THEKKETHALAKKAL HOUSE, CHERIYAPALLAMTHURUTHU,
NORTH PARAVOOR P.O., PIN - 683513
BY ADV SRI.V.R.MANORANJAN (MUVATTUPUZHA)
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE DIRECTOR
CBI (CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION)
PLOT NO 5-B, CGO COMPLEX, LODHI ROAD,
NEW DELHI, PIN - 110003
2 THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
VIGILANCE AND ANTI-CORRUPTION BUREAU
CENTRAL RANGE OFFICE ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682017
BY ADV SREELAL N.WARRIER, SPL.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
FOR CBI, REPRESENTED BY ADV.REKHA S.
BY ADV ROY THOMAS (MUVATTUPUZHA, SR.PUBLIC
PROSECUTOR, VACB FOR R2
THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY
HEARD ON 16.10.2026, THE COURT ON 24.10.2026 DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
CNR : KLHC010263922026
2026:KER:81401
WP(CRL.) NO. 570 OF 2026
2
CR
JUDGMENT
th
Dated this the 24 day of October, 2026
This writ petition (criminal) has been filed under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following
reliefs:
“(i) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other
appropriate writ, order, or direction, directing
Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to duly incorporate,
examine, and investigate the involvement of
Sri.P.M.A. Sameer (Mob: 97443 30044),
Smt.Renu Gopinath (Mob.: 62383 62021),
Adv.Mohammed Shah, and Sri.Vikas C. Mehta
(Deputy Director, Enforcement Directorate)
(Mob.: 98737 36000/9319823600), as part of the
ongoing enquiry against the officials of the
Enforcement Directorate, Cochin Zonal Office, in
connection with the alleged corruption and
malpractices referred to in Exhibit-P1 FIR, in
terms of Exhibit-P2 representation dated
23.05.2026 submitted by the Petitioner;
(ii) Dispense with translation of documents
produced in vernacular language and
(iii) Issue such other writs, orders or direction which
this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper to
issue in the facts and circumstances of the
case;”
CNR : KLHC010263922026
2026:KER:81401
WP(CRL.) NO. 570 OF 2026
3
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner
and the learned Special Public Prosecutor in detail.
3. In this matter, a statement has been filed by
the Dy.S.P., Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau, Central
Range Ernakulam. Paragraphs 2 to 7 of the statement are
relevant and the same read as under:
“2. It is humbly submitted that the
petitioner herein has filed this Writ Petition, by
arraying the Superintendent of Police, Central Range,
nd
Ernakulam, as the 2 respondent, alleging inaction on
the part of the respondents in considering his
representations (Exhibits P2 and P3). Through the
said representations, the petitioner has sought for
initiating an enquiry into the allegation of corruption by
certain officials of the Enforcement Directorate, Kochi
Office, and has further requested that the role of
certain individuals be examined and incorporated in
the investigation of the Vigilance Case No. VC
09/2025/EKM (Ext. P1) , registered by the Vigilance
and Anti-Corruption Bureau, Ernakulam Unit under
Section 7(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
CNR : KLHC010263922026
2026:KER:81401
WP(CRL.) NO. 570 OF 2026
4
and Section 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita,
2023. Consequently, in the present Writ Petition, the
petitioner has prayed for issuance of a writ of
mandamus or other appropriate directions for
including the persons mentioned in his representation
as part of the ongoing enquiry.
3. It is respectfully submitted that VC
No. 09/2025/EKM was registered on 15.05.2025 at
18:00 hours based on a complaint lodged by Sri.
Aneesh Babu, S/o Babu George, alleging that
Accused No. 1, Sri.Sekhar Kumar, Assistant Director,
Enforcement Directorate, Kochi Zonal Office,
demanded a bribe of ₹ 2 Crores through an
intermediary, Sri.Wilson Varghese (Accused No. 2),
for settling a case against him. Acting on the
complaint, and upon pre-trap verification which prima
facie substantiated the allegation, a trap was duly
arranged and executed, resulting in the apprehension
of Accused No. 2 while accepting 2 Lakhs as illegal
₹
gratification. During investigation, based on
disclosures made by Accused No. 2 and supporting
materials, Sri.Mukesh Jain (hawala agent) and
Sri.Ranjith R. Warrier (Chartered Accountant,
Ernakulam) were identified, arrested, and arrayed as
Accused Nos. 3 and 4 respectively.
4. It is further submitted that the
CNR : KLHC010263922026
2026:KER:81401
WP(CRL.) NO. 570 OF 2026
5
investigation in the aforesaid case is progressing in a
systematic, lawful, and diligent manner under the
supervision of competent authorities of the Vigilance
and Anti-Corruption Bureau. Several witnesses have
been examined and their statements recorded in
accordance with law, and the investigation is being
conducted with due care, objectivity, and adherence
to established legal procedures.
5. With regard to the representations
relied upon by the petitioner, it is submitted that Ext.
P2 dated 30.05.2025 has not been received in the
office of the Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and
Anti-Corruption Bureau, Central Range, Ernakulam so
far. However, Ext. P3 dated 23.03.2026 was received
nd
at the office of the 2 respondent on 24.03.2026 by
post. The allegations levelled in the said Ext. P3
representation is with regard to the involvement of
Sri.P.M.A.Sameer, Smt.Renu Gopinath, Adv.
Mohammed Shah, and Sri. Vikas C.Mehta, Deputy
Director, Enforcement Directorate, in hawala
transactions, financial irregularities, and undue
interference in official enquiries, including matters
relating to Chandrika Daily. The said representation
has been duly forwarded to the Director, Vigilance &
Anti-Corruption Bureau, Thiruvananthapuram on
CNR : KLHC010263922026
2026:KER:81401
WP(CRL.) NO. 570 OF 2026
6
25.03.2026 for consideration and for issuance of
appropriate further orders.
6. It is respectfully submitted that the
scope of investigation in VC No. 09/2025/EKM is
confined to the allegations relating to the demand and
acceptance of illegal gratification and the
consequential conspiracy connected therewith. The
allegations now sought to be projected by the
petitioner, insofar as they concern, the persons
proposed to be implicated, do not disclose any
tangible or proximate connection with the subject
matter under investigation. No reliable or legally
acceptable material has emerged to link the said
individuals into the alleged offences in
VC-09/2025/EKM. In such circumstances, any attempt
to rope them into the ongoing investigation would be
devoid of factual foundation and unsustainable in law.
7. It is respectfully submitted that the
investigation carried out so far in VC No.
09/2025/EKM has not disclosed any material
indicating the involvement of the persons referred to
by the petitioner herein either in the present Writ
Petition or in Exhibit P3 representation. During the
course of investigation while interrogating the A2, Sri.
Wilson Varghese, an ED intermediary and other
CNR : KLHC010263922026
2026:KER:81401
WP(CRL.) NO. 570 OF 2026
7
witnesses, nowhere in their depositions did they make
any substantial lead to connect the above said 4
individuals have been made out.”
st
4. Even though instruction from the 1
respondent, the Director of the Central Bureau of
Investigation, was called for, so far no instruction has been
received.
5. Heard both sides in detail on 16.10.2026
and perused the available records.
6. First of all, it is relevant to consider certain
pertinent legal aspects involved in this matter, in view of the
submission made at the Bench regarding the powers of the
High Court in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of Ind i a, seeking registration of FIR, or
investigation.
7. As perceivable, in the instant case, the
petitioner wants to issue a writ of mandamus or any other
CNR : KLHC010263922026
2026:KER:81401
WP(CRL.) NO. 570 OF 2026
8
appropriate writ, directing respondent Nos.1 and 2 to
investigate upon the involvement of Sri.P.M.A.Sameer,
Smt.Renu Gopinath, Adv.Mohammed Shah, and Sri.Vikas C.
Mehta (Deputy Director, Enforcement Directorate), in terms
of Ext.P1 FIR, and Ext.P2 representation submitted by the
petitioner. However, the above persons are not arrayed as
respondents in this case.
8. Now, the questions arise for consideration
are:
1) Whether the power of the High Court to
issue a writ of mandamus or any other
appropriate writ or direction filed for under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India is
restrained by any other statutory
prohibitions or provisions? and
2) Whether in a writ petition filed under
Article 226 of Constitution of India,
seeking registration of FIR, filed before
the High Court, the restrictions under the
CNR : KLHC010263922026
2026:KER:81401
WP(CRL.) NO. 570 OF 2026
9
Prevention of Corruption Act, or the right
of hearing as provided under Sections 175
and 223 of the Bharatiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, or any other
statutory restrictions would be a rider or its
compliance is an absolute mandate to
issue a writ of mandamus commanding
the authorities to do an act, when they fail
to do their legal obligation?
9. In this connection, it is relevant to refer
the Constitution Bench decision of the Hon’ble Apex
Court in State of West Bengal and Ors. Vs. The
committee for Protection of Democratic Rights, West
Bengal and Ors., reported in (2010) 3 SCC 571 :
MANU/SC/0121/2010, wherein the Constitution Bench
addressed the matter, after referring multiple earlier
decisions of the Apex Court and Section 6 of the
CNR : KLHC010263922026
2026:KER:81401
WP(CRL.) NO. 570 OF 2026
10
Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 and in
paragraph No.44, made the following conclusions:
“(i) The fundamental rights, enshrined in
Part III of the Constitution, are inherent and cannot
be extinguished by any Constitutional or Statutory
provision. Any law that abrogates or abridges such
rights would be violative of the basic structure
doctrine. The actual effect and impact of the law on
the rights guaranteed under Part III has to be taken
into account in determining whether or not it
destroys the basic structure.
(ii) Article 21 of the Constitution in its
broad perspective seeks to protect the persons of
their lives and personal liberties except according
to the procedure established by law. The said
Article in its broad application not only takes within
its fold enforcement of the rights of an accused but
also the rights of the victim. The State has a duty to
enforce the human rights of a citizen providing for
fair and impartial investigation against any person
accused of commission of a cognizable offence,
which may include its own officers. In certain
situations even a witness to the crime may seek for
and shall be granted protection by the State.
(iii) In view of the constitutional scheme
and the jurisdiction conferred on this Court under
Article 32 and on the High Courts under Article 226
of the Constitution the power of judicial review
being an integral part of the basic structure of the
Constitution, no Act of Parliament can exclude or
CNR : KLHC010263922026
2026:KER:81401
WP(CRL.) NO. 570 OF 2026
11
curtail the powers of the Constitutional Courts with
regard to the enforcement of fundamental rights. As
a matter of fact, such a power is essential to give
practicable content to the objectives of the
Constitution embodied in Part III and other parts of
the Constitution. Moreover, in a federal constitution,
the distribution of legislative powers between the
Parliament and the State Legislature involves
limitation on legislative powers and, therefore, this
requires an authority other than the Parliament to
ascertain whether such limitations are
transgressed. Judicial review acts as the final
arbiter not only to give effect to the distribution of
legislative powers between the Parliament and the
State Legislatures, it is also necessary to show any
transgression by each entity. Therefore, to borrow
the words of Lord Steyn, judicial review is justified
by combination of "the principles of separation of
powers, rule of law, the principle of constitutionality
and the reach of judicial review".
(iv) If the federal structure is violated by
any legislative action, the Constitution takes care to
protect the federal structure by ensuring that Courts
act as guardians and interpreters of the
Constitution and provide remedy under Articles 32
and 226, whenever there is an attempted violation.
In the circumstances, any direction by the Supreme
Court or the High Court in exercise of power under
Article 32 or 226 to uphold the Constitution and
maintain the rule of law cannot be termed as
violating the federal structure.
CNR : KLHC010263922026
2026:KER:81401
WP(CRL.) NO. 570 OF 2026
12
(v) Restriction on the Parliament by the
Constitution and restriction on the Executive by the
Parliament under an enactment, do not amount to
restriction on the power of the Judiciary under
Article 32 and 226 of the Constitution.
(vi) If in terms of Entry 2 of List II of The
Seventh Schedule on the one hand and Entry 2A
and Entry 80 of List I on the other, an investigation
by another agency is permissible subject to grant of
consent by the State concerned, there is no reason
as to why, in an exceptional situation, court would
be precluded from exercising the same power
which the Union could exercise in terms of the
provisions of the Statute. In our opinion, exercise of
such power by the constitutional courts would not
violate the doctrine of separation of powers. In fact,
if in such a situation the court fails to grant relief, it
would be failing in its constitutional duty.
(vii) When the Special Police Act itself
provides that subject to the consent by the State,
the CBI can take up investigation in relation to the
crime which was otherwise within the jurisdiction of
the State Police, the court can also exercise its
constitutional power of judicial review and direct the
CBI to take up the investigation within the
jurisdiction of the State. 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
CNR : KLHC010263922026
2026:KER:81401
WP(CRL.) NO. 570 OF 2026
13
of the Union, cannot be read as restriction on the
powers of the Constitutional Courts. Therefore,
exercise of power of judicial review by the High
Court, in our opinion, would not amount to
infringement of either the doctrine of separation of
power or the federal structure.”
The Apex Court followed the said ratio in many subsequent
decisions, including a Three-Judge Bench decision of the
Apex Court in Manohar Lal Sharma Vs. The Principal
Secretary and Ors., reported in (2014) 2 SCC 532 :
MANU/SC/1306/2013.
10 . That apart, in the decision in Legislative
Council UP Lucknow v . Sushil Kumar, reported in 2025
KHC OnLine 6877, it has been reiterated by the Apex Court
that an order of CBI investigation or enquiry should not be
passed in routine manner on mere allegations levelled by the
parties. The exercise of such power by the High Court or by
this Court must be made sparingly, cautiously and in an
exceptional situation when credibility of investigation is in
CNR : KLHC010263922026
2026:KER:81401
WP(CRL.) NO. 570 OF 2026
14
question and to repose confidence in investigation. It was
held further that the Court may exercise such discretion for
enforcing the fundamental rights.
11. Thus going by the law laid down in the
decision in State of West Bengal and Ors.’ s case ( supra),
and followed in the subsequent decisions of the Apex Court,
it is well settled that the power of judicial review being an
integral part of the basic structure of the Constitution, and no
Act of Parliament or legislatures can exclude or curtail the
powers of the Constitutional Courts with regard to the
enforcement of fundamental rights. As a matter of fact, such
a power is essential to give practicable content to the
objectives of the Constitution embodied in Part III and other
parts of the Constitution. Moreover, in a federal constitution,
the distribution of legislative powers between the Parliament
and the State Legislature involves limitation on legislative
CNR : KLHC010263922026
2026:KER:81401
WP(CRL.) NO. 570 OF 2026
15
powers and, therefore, this requires an authority other than
the Parliament to ascertain whether such limitations are
transgressed. Judicial review acts as the final arbiter not only
to give effect to the distribution of legislative powers between
the Parliament and the State Legislatures, it is also
necessary to show any transgression by each entity with a
view to uphold the powers, rule of law, the principle of
constitutionality and the reach of judicial review. Thus, as
held by the Constitution Bench decision of the Apex Court,
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
CNR : KLHC010263922026
2026:KER:81401
WP(CRL.) NO. 570 OF 2026
16
powers of the Constitutional Courts .
12. In view of the above legal position, 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 non-
hearing 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.
13. Holding the law so, when the report filed
by the Dy.S.P. is gone through, investigation in
V.C.No.09/25/EKM has been progressing, and
insofar as the prayers sought for by the petitioner
CNR : KLHC010263922026
2026:KER:81401
WP(CRL.) NO. 570 OF 2026
17
are concerned, the investigation has not yet disclosed
any material indicating the involvement of the
persons referred to by the petitioner herein, as contended.
Therefore, as of now, the reliefs sought for cannot be
allowed.
However, the investigating officer is free to
investigate the involvement of any other persons in this crime
on getting materials thereon.
Holding so, the writ petition stands disposed of.
Sd/-
A. BADHARUDEEN
JUDGE
nkr
CNR : KLHC010263922026
2026:KER:81401
WP(CRL.) NO. 570 OF 2026
18
APPENDIX OF WP(CRL.) NO. 570 OF 2026
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit-P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE FIR NO. 09/2025
DATED 15/05/2025 REGISTERED WITH VACB
ERNAKULAM UNIT
Exhibit-P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION
DATED 30.05.2025
Exhibit-P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION
DATED 23/03/2026 FILED BY THE
PETITIONER BEFORE THE RESPONDENT NO. 1
& 2