Kerala High Court rejects plea for CBI probe into attack on ED officers

The Kerala High Court recently dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking a Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) probe into an alleged attack on Enforcement Directorate (ED) officials. The incident occurred during a search operation at the residence of former Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan. A Division Bench, comprising Chief Justice Soumen Sen and Justice Syam Kumar VM, reiterated that constitutional courts should direct a CBI investigation only in "rare and exceptional cases" where there is clear material demonstrating bias by the state investigating agency or an impossibility of a fair investigation. The Court found no prima facie evidence to suggest that the ongoing state police investigation was biased or unfair, emphasizing the principles of judicial restraint and cooperative federalism in its decision. This ruling underscores the high threshold required for judicial intervention to transfer investigations to central agencies, affirming the primary role of state police in maintaining law and order.

In a significant pronouncement on the delicate balance of federalism and judicial oversight in criminal investigations, the Kerala High Court recently declined to transfer the probe into an alleged attack on Enforcement Directorate (ED) officials to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). The incident, which saw ED officers reportedly assaulted during a search at the residence of former Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan on May 27, 2026, had prompted a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking central agency intervention.

The Division Bench of Chief Justice Soumen Sen and Justice Syam Kumar VM, in the case of *Jojo Jose v The Chief Secretary*, underscored that the extraordinary power to direct a CBI investigation must be exercised sparingly and with circumspection. The Court's decision reaffirms the established jurisprudence that such a transfer is warranted only in "rare and exceptional cases" where there is compelling evidence of bias or a complete failure of the state investigating machinery. This judgment is particularly pertinent for legal practitioners, as it clarifies the stringent criteria for bypassing state law enforcement agencies and highlights the judiciary's commitment to upholding the principles of cooperative federalism.

This article will delve into the legal framework governing CBI investigations, analyze the Kerala High Court's reasoning in light of Supreme Court precedents, and discuss the broader implications for the interplay between central and state investigative agencies in India. The ruling serves as a crucial reminder of the high evidentiary bar that must be met by petitioners seeking to transfer investigations, reinforcing the presumption of impartiality accorded to state police forces.

The powers and jurisdiction of the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) are primarily derived from the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (DSPE Act). Under Section 6 of this Act, the CBI generally requires the consent of the concerned state government to exercise its powers and jurisdiction within that state. However, this statutory requirement is subject to the constitutional powers of the High Courts under Article 226 and the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, which can direct a CBI investigation even without state consent in exceptional circumstances.

Conversely, the Enforcement Directorate (ED) operates under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA), which empowers it to investigate offences related to money laundering and attach properties derived from such crimes. The PMLA grants significant powers to the ED, making its officials central to combating economic offences. The incident in question involved ED officials conducting a search as part of their duties under the PMLA, leading to an alleged attack by a large crowd. The petitioner, advocate Jojo Jose, argued that the state police investigation into this attack might be compromised due to alleged political interference, necessitating a CBI probe to ensure impartiality.

The doctrine governing the transfer of investigations to the CBI by constitutional courts has been meticulously developed by the Supreme Court. Landmark judgments, such as *State of West Bengal v. Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights*, (2010) 3 SCC 571, have affirmed the power of High Courts to order CBI investigations, even without state consent, when the facts of a case demand it to ensure justice. However, this power is not to be exercised routinely but only when it is essential to restore public confidence in the investigation or where there is a manifest failure of the state machinery. Similarly, in *Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P.*, (2008) 2 SCC 409, the Supreme Court emphasized the importance of exhausting statutory remedies under the Code of Criminal Procedure before invoking the extraordinary writ jurisdiction for a CBI probe.

The Kerala High Court, in *Jojo Jose v The Chief Secretary*, (2026:KER:48561 WP(PIL) NO. 114 OF 2026), meticulously applied the well-established judicial principles governing the transfer of investigations to central agencies. The Division Bench, comprising Chief Justice Soumen Sen and Justice Syam Kumar VM, observed that constitutional courts should direct a CBI investigation only in "rare and exceptional cases" where there is material to demonstrate that the investigating agency was acting with bias or that a fair investigation was not possible. This aligns squarely with the pronouncements of the Supreme Court in *State of West Bengal v. Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights*, (2010) 3 SCC 571, which held that while High Courts possess the power to order CBI probes under Article 226, such power must be exercised with caution and only when it is imperative to do complete justice or to instill credibility.

The petitioner's contention in *Jojo Jose* was that the state police investigation into the attack on ED officials, particularly given the involvement of a former Chief Minister's residence and alleged political interference, would not be impartial. However, the High Court found that the materials placed before it did not *prima facie* indicate any bias or unfairness on the part of the state police. The Court noted that the state police had made "substantial progress" in their investigation, including registering FIRs, collecting documentary evidence, and recording statements from 44 witnesses. This finding is critical, as it underscores the judiciary's reluctance to interfere with ongoing state investigations without concrete evidence of systemic failure or malfeasance.

The judgment also implicitly reinforces the concept of "cooperative federalism," a cornerstone of the Indian constitutional structure. By exercising judicial restraint and allowing the state police to continue their investigation, the High Court upheld the autonomy of state law enforcement agencies in matters of law and order, which primarily falls under the State List of the Seventh Schedule. The Court emphasized that transferring an investigation to a central agency like the CBI, particularly without clear evidence of state agency failure, could be seen as undermining the federal structure. This approach is consistent with the Supreme Court's view in *Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P.*, (2008) 2 SCC 409, which advised against premature writ petitions for CBI probes, urging recourse to statutory remedies first.

While the power of constitutional courts to order CBI investigations is an essential check against arbitrary or biased state action, the Kerala High Court's decision highlights the high bar for invoking this extraordinary remedy. Mere allegations of political interference or dissatisfaction with the pace of investigation are insufficient. There must be tangible material demonstrating a breach of duty, a lack of impartiality, or an impossibility of a fair investigation by the state agency. The Court's emphasis on the absence of *prima facie* evidence of bias serves as a crucial precedent for future applications seeking similar transfers, reinforcing the principle that such powers are to be exercised "sparingly and with circumspection."

The Kerala High Court's decision in *Jojo Jose v The Chief Secretary* serves as a vital reaffirmation of the principles of judicial restraint and cooperative federalism in India's criminal justice system. For legal practitioners, this judgment underscores the exceptionally high threshold that must be met to successfully petition for a transfer of investigation from a state agency to the CBI. It is not enough to merely allege political interference or express dissatisfaction; concrete and verifiable material demonstrating a clear bias, a manifest failure of duty, or an impossibility of a fair investigation by the state police is indispensable. The Court's emphasis on the "rare and exceptional" nature of such interventions means that practitioners must build a robust evidentiary foundation before approaching constitutional courts for such extraordinary relief.

Moving forward, this ruling signals a continued judicial reluctance to lightly undermine the autonomy and credibility of state law enforcement agencies. Practitioners should advise clients that exhausting statutory remedies and presenting compelling evidence of systemic failure by state authorities will be crucial for any future attempts to seek central agency probes. The decision reinforces the idea that, in a federal structure, the primary responsibility for law and order rests with the states, and central intervention, even through judicial directive, remains an exceptional measure. This case will likely influence how similar petitions are evaluated, urging a more rigorous scrutiny of the grounds for transferring investigations and promoting a balanced approach to inter-agency dynamics.