Court emphasizes that High Court's writ jurisdiction under Article 226 cannot be curtailed by statutory provisions but directs investigation to proceed only on credible material connecting persons to the alleged crime.
In a significant judgment delivered on October 24, 2026, the Kerala High Court, led by Justice A. Badharudeen, reaffirmed the constitutional power of judicial review vested in High Courts under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution. The court clarified that this power cannot be restricted or diluted by any statutory provisions while considering the registration of FIRs or directing investigations, especially in cases involving allegations of corruption.
The case arose from a writ petition filed by M.R. Ajayan seeking a writ of mandamus directing the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau (VACB) to include four individuals - Sri P.M.A. Sameer, Smt. Renu Gopinath, Adv. Mohammed Shah, and Sri Vikas C. Mehta (Deputy Director, Enforcement Directorate) - in an ongoing vigilance investigation concerning alleged bribery and corruption involving officials of the Enforcement Directorate's Cochin Zonal Office.
The petitioner's request was based on representations alleging the involvement of these individuals in hawala transactions, financial irregularities, and undue interference in official enquiries. However, the Dy. Superintendent of Police (Dy. SP), Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau, submitted a detailed report stating that the ongoing investigation (Vigilance Case No. 09/2025/EKM) was progressing lawfully and systematically, based on a bribery complaint where accused persons were apprehended during a trap operation. The report emphasized that there was no material evidence linking the four individuals named by the petitioner to the offences under investigation.
In its ruling, the High Court extensively referred to the Constitution Bench judgment of the Supreme Court in State of West Bengal v. Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights (2010), which underscored that the power of judicial review is an integral part of the basic structure of the Constitution and cannot be curtailed by any statute. The court also cited the decision in Manohar Lal Sharma v. Principal Secretary (2014) and the Kerala High Court's own precedent in Legislative Council UP Lucknow v. Sushil Kumar (2025) to highlight that directions for investigation or CBI enquiry must be exercised sparingly and only in exceptional cases where investigation credibility is in doubt or to instil public confidence.
Rejecting the petitioner's prayer to include the four individuals in the ongoing probe due to lack of material evidence, the court nevertheless left the investigating officer free to examine their involvement should any credible material emerge in the future.
This judgment clarifies that while the High Court's constitutional powers to direct investigations remain intact and cannot be impeded by statutory provisions such as the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 or the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, such powers are not to be exercised routinely or on mere allegations. The court also highlighted that non-impleadment of persons in the writ petition or statutory rights such as hearing do not bar the High Court from ordering investigations if cognizable offences are prima facie established.
The ruling reinforces the balance between safeguarding fundamental rights through judicial oversight and ensuring investigations are conducted on a firm evidentiary basis, thus protecting individuals from unwarranted inclusion in criminal probes.
Bottom Line:
Constitution of India, Article 226 - Power of judicial review of High Court cannot be curtailed by statutory restrictions while considering prayer for registration of FIR or investigation - However, direction for investigation by CBI or inclusion of additional persons in ongoing investigation cannot be issued routinely and must rest on available material showing cognizable offence or nexus with crime under investigation - In absence of material connecting persons named by petitioner with vigilance crime, relief declined, while leaving investigating officer free to probe involvement of any other person if material emerges.
Statutory provision(s):
Article 226, Constitution of India; Section 7(a), Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988; Sections 175, 223, Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023; Section 61(2), Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023
M.R. Ajayan v. Director, CBI, (Kerala) : Law Finder Doc Id # 3004088
