The Karnataka High Court has turned down a plea by a Bengaluru resident who wanted the Enforcement Directorate to hand over his case to a different Investigating Officer. Justice Suraj Govindaraj, hearing the matter on August 5, 2026, not only rejected the request but also pulled up the petitioner for the way he tried to press his grievance - by sending copies of his complaint straight to the Union Finance Minister, the Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court and the Chief Justice of India, and imposed a Rs 1 lakh cost.
Background of the Case
The petitioner, Fair Vakkayil John, had approached the High Court under Article 226, seeking a direction to the ED to act on his representation dated July 25, 2026. In that letter, he had asked the agency to recuse Assistant Director Sunil Kumar Sinhmar from investigating him, claiming the officer was biased against him.
The case stems from a summons issued on July 9, 2026, linked to events at Kempegowda International Airport on the night of April 17-18, 2026, involving the petitioner and one Micah Mark. John also wanted the airport authorities to preserve and hand over CCTV footage of that night.
Court's Observations
The Court was firm that a person under investigation cannot pick and choose who investigates him. Justice Govindaraj observed that
"a person against whom an investigation is being conducted does not possess a vested right to choose, nominate or seek substitution of the Investigating Officer merely because he entertains a subjective apprehension regarding the conduct of the investigation."
The judge added that nothing on record showed bias or mala fides beyond a general allegation.
What drew sharper criticism was John marking his representation to constitutional functionaries. The Court noted this "has the potential of creating an impression that an attempt is being made to secure intervention through channels outside the judicial process," and said such conduct deserved to be strongly discouraged.
On the CCTV request, counsel for Bangalore International Airport Limited told the Court the footage from that period had already been auto-deleted, since the system retains recordings for only 30 days.
Decision
The writ petition was disposed of. The plea to transfer the Investigating Officer was rejected, and the CCTV prayer was recorded as infructuous. The Court imposed a cost of Rs 1,00,000 on the petitioner, payable to the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority within 15 days, warning that repetition of such conduct could invite exemplary costs in future.
Case Details
- Case Title: Fair Vakkayil John vs Union of India & Others
- Case Number: Writ Petition No. 24293 of 2026 (GM-RES)
- Judge: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Suraj Govindaraj
- Decision Date: August 5, 2026
