ED moves Supreme Court against Delhi HC order quashing NewsClick case

Agency disputes High Court's assessment of incriminating material

The Enforcement Directorate challenged the High Court’s finding that no incriminating material had emerged despite the investigation continuing for around a year and a half. The agency submitted that the High Court failed to consider the evidence and incriminating material that the Enforcement Directorate had placed on record.

ED claims wrong legal test applied at investigation stage

The agency contended that the High Court applied the wrong legal test while quashing the proceedings at the investigation stage. According to the Enforcement Directorate, the court is required to examine the allegations at this stage rather than determine whether incriminating material has been found. The agency argued that the relevant test is whether the information in the case provides a reason to suspect the commission of an offence, and it maintained that the gathered material warranted further proceedings.

In a separate legal development on October 26, 2026, the Kerala High Court Division Bench of Justice K. Natarajan and Justice Johnson John stayed the FIR, further investigation, and the Single Bench judgment in the CMRL-Exalogic pay off case against former Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan, his daughter Veena T., and son-in-law Muhammed Riyas. The court admitted these appeals and scheduled the final hearing for three weeks later.

On October 21, 2026, the Apex Court had previously set aside an order that refused to permit Pinarayi Vijayan and his family to appeal a Single Bench order, ruling they were entitled to move appeals before the Division Bench. Aggrieved by the earlier direction, Pinarayi, Veena, and Riyas moved separate appeals to the Division Bench, contending they were not heard by the Single Bench, which they argued violated the principles of natural justice. The Division Bench did not grant them leave to prefer the appeal. Subsequently, the three moved the Supreme Court, which remanded the appeals back to the Division Bench for consideration.

The Supreme Court also granted a 10-day stay on the investigation in the FIR registered against them. The Bench noted it was appalled at the manner in which the investigation was carried out. The Supreme Court in March 2026 had directed the trial court to conclude the proceedings within three months. Regarding a separate matter, the prosecution stated that the complainant’s son went missing in October 2019, leading the father to lodge a missing-person’s report followed by a second report alleging abduction based on CCTV footage. The Bench censured the prosecution for pursuing a case devoid of evidence.

Impact of stay orders on investigation progress

The agency submitted that its investigation could not be completed because the High Court had ordered that no coercive action be taken against the respondents in June 2021. The Enforcement Directorate claimed that its applications seeking clarification and vacation of the stay remained pending for around three years, restricting its ability to fully investigate the case. Meanwhile, the Kerala High Court has scheduled the final hearing for the CMRL-Exalogic appeals for three weeks after October 26, 2026.

Discrepancies in foreign investment records

The Enforcement Directorate highlighted alleged discrepancies concerning foreign investments received by PPK Newsclick Studio Private Limited. This includes an agreement with Worldwide Media Holdings LLC for an investment of $1.5 million split into three tranches.

The agency claimed that only one tranche was received as foreign direct investment. It questioned the circumstances surrounding how the company received these foreign funds.

Investigators relied on the company financial records and email communications regarding the incorporation of Worldwide Media Holdings LLC. They also cited statements recorded during the investigation to support these claims.

Legal arguments on cheating and criminal conspiracy

The agency challenged the conclusion of the High Court that the allegations did not disclose offences of cheating and criminal conspiracy. It argued that cheating is not limited to cases where a person is directly deprived of property.

Cheating can involve inducing a person to act in a manner that causes harm to their body, mind, reputation, or property.

The agency relied on Supreme Court judgments to argue that a police case need not contain every detail of the alleged offence.

Status of the ECIR and jurisdictional reach

The Enforcement Directorate challenged the High Court’s decision to junk the Enforcement Case Information Report, arguing it is an internal document. The agency stated that an ECIR is not equivalent to a case registered by the police. It further contended that junking an ECIR does not bring a Prevention of Money Laundering Act investigation to an end.

The Enforcement Directorate argued the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction by examining disputed questions of fact under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Senior Advocate N. Hariharan argued that the writ petitioner, Adv. K.M. Shajahan, bypassed the statutory procedure under Section 175 BNSS by approaching the writ court directly. Hariharan argued that a petitioner bypassed statutory procedures under Section 175 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita. Hariharan contended that a Single Judge exceeded jurisdiction by acting as an investigating officer and ordering an FIR.

Arguments regarding agency jurisdiction remain complex, as Senior Advocate Sidharth Luthra noted that the Serious Fraud Investigation Office and other appellants were intentionally excluded as parties. While the Serious Fraud Investigation Office probes transactions under Section 212 of the Companies Act, the Additional Solicitor General of India P. Sreekumar argued this section does not apply to money laundering cases. The state is required to register an FIR upon receiving information disclosing a cognizable offence.

In a separate matter, a Single Bench directed the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau to register an FIR incorporating offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The court found the government’s decision to conduct a preliminary enquiry without registering an FIR was illegal. It set aside the state’s order forming a Special Investigation Team to conduct that enquiry.

The Supreme Court slammed the Uttar Pradesh Police for a slipshod and compromised murder probe, calling it an egregious example of how a criminal inquiry should never be conducted in the case Arun @ Deepak v. State of UP. The Bench remarked that the investigation and prosecuting agencies exist not merely to, and by whatever means bring in a conviction. The court observed that the botched investigation put an innocent citizen’s life and liberty into jeopardy.

The Supreme Court directed the Uttar Pradesh government to pay ₹6 lakh in compensation to an accused who spent six years in jail as an under-trial. The Bench noted that the charred bones recovered were never matched through DNA profiling. Electronic evidence was placed on record without mandatory certificates under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act.

The court held that such systemic failure warrants direct reparation to the accused. The Bench stated the ₹6 lakh compensation was paltry in comparison to the years spent in custody. The court directed that a copy of the judgment be forwarded to the Director General of Police and the Home Secretary of Uttar Pradesh.