Kerala HC Says Statutory Rules Cannot Bar Article 226 Probe Orders When Cognizable Offence Is Shown, But Finds No Link To Four In ED Bribery Case

The petitioner sought directions to the CBI and the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau (VACB) to examine the alleged involvement of four named individuals in VACB Case No. 09/2025/EKM, concerning an alleged bribe demand by an Enforcement Directorate Assistant Director through an intermediary.

The VACB stated that the investigation had identified and arrayed four other accused, but had disclosed no material linking the four individuals named by the petitioner to the alleged offences.

The petitioner’s later representation had been forwarded to the Director of VACB for consideration.

The writ petition sought their inclusion in the ongoing investigation.

Article 226 empowers the High Court to protect fundamental rights and exercise judicial review; statutory restrictions on executive or investigative powers do not, by themselves, curtail the constitutional court’s power.

In State of West Bengal v. Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights, (2010) 3 SCC 571, the Constitution Bench held that High Courts may direct a CBI investigation in an appropriate case, notwithstanding Section 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946, while exercising that power cautiously and in exceptional circumstances.

Manohar Lal Sharma v. Principal Secretary, (2014) 2 SCC 532, was cited as following that principle.

The court also referred to Legislative Council, U.P., Lucknow v. Sushil Kumar, 2025 KHC OnLine 6877, which cautions that a CBI investigation should not be ordered routinely on mere allegations, but may be directed sparingly where the credibility of the investigation is in question or to protect fundamental rights.

The court held that statutory provisions do not remove or dilute the High Court’s constitutional power to direct an investigation where the material before it discloses a cognizable offence warranting investigation; non-impleadment or non-hearing of persons sought to be investigated is not, by itself, a bar to exercising that power.

However, on the facts, the VACB reported that the ongoing investigation had produced no material connecting the four individuals named by the petitioner to the offences under investigation, and the court found no basis at that stage to grant the requested relief.

It clarified that the investigating officer remained free to investigate any other person if material emerged linking that person to the crime.