The Kerala High Court has held that statutory restrictions cannot curtail its constitutional powers under Article 226 to order an investigation into a cognizable offence. However, Justice A. Badharudeen declined to direct the inclusion of four individuals in an ongoing vigilance investigation, finding that the available material did not establish their connection with the case.
Background
The petitioner approached the High Court seeking directions to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau (VACB) to investigate the alleged involvement of four individuals, including an Enforcement Directorate Deputy Director, in connection with an existing vigilance case.
The case, registered as VC No. 09/2025/EKM, arose from allegations that an Assistant Director of the Enforcement Directorate's Kochi Zonal Office had demanded a bribe of ₹2 crore through an intermediary to settle a case. The intermediary was subsequently apprehended while accepting ₹2 lakh.
During the investigation, a hawala agent and a chartered accountant were also identified and arrayed as accused. The petitioner sought to have four additional individuals examined as part of the ongoing investigation.
The Court examined whether statutory provisions could restrict the High Court's constitutional jurisdiction when considering requests for registration of an FIR or further investigation.
Relying on the Supreme Court's Constitution Bench decision in State of West Bengal v. Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights, the Court reiterated that judicial review forms part of the Constitution's basic structure.
The judgment observed:
"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."
Justice Badharudeen further explained that statutory requirements concerning the hearing of proposed accused persons or their non-impleadment as respondents would not, by themselves, prevent the High Court from ordering an investigation where the available material establishes the need for one.
The Court clarified:
"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."
Despite affirming its constitutional powers, the Court found no material in the investigation report connecting the four individuals named by the petitioner with the ongoing vigilance case. The investigating agency had also reported that witness statements had not produced any substantial lead against them.
The Court therefore declined to grant the requested relief at that stage, while preserving the investigating officer's authority to examine other individuals if relevant material emerges.
It accordingly disposed of the writ petition.
Case Details
Case Title: M. R. Ajayan v. Director, Central Bureau of Investigation & Another
Case Number: WP(Crl.) No. 570 of 2026
Judge: Justice A. Badharudeen
Decision Date: October 24, 2026
