Punjab and Haryana High Court orders CBI probe into CM Mann

Judicial reliance on 'Vijay Madanlal Choudhary' to mandate FIRs

Courts are increasingly citing the 2022 Supreme Court judgment in 'Vijay Madanlal Choudhary vs. Union of India' to compel state agencies to register first information reports based on recommendations from the Enforcement Directorate. Judges rely specifically on paragraphs 53 and 60 of this ruling to enforce these mandates.

Section 66 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act allows the Enforcement Directorate to share information with agencies handling areas like foreign exchange or narcotics if deemed necessary for their functions.

Justice Joymalya Bagchi of the Supreme Court has expressed concerns regarding how lower courts interpret this precedent. He stated, "Our problem is now we read judgments like statutes. Vijay Madanlal Choudhary has now been conflated to become a mandate on the State to the agency under Section 66(2)".

Justice Bagchi noted that the judgment only provides for information sharing as per law, leaving the agency to decide the appropriate action. He added, "Neither Vijay Madanlal Choudhary addresses that issue, nor will the PMLA be the super-administrator mandating everything everywhere".

Supreme Court cautions agencies against statutory overreach

In May 2025, a Supreme Court bench including then Chief Justice of India BR Gavai and Justice Augustine George Masih warned the Enforcement Directorate against overstepping its authority. The judges stated that the agency was "crossing all limits and acting in violation of the Constitution and federal structure by initiating action against a government body".

The Supreme Court recently ordered that no investigation should proceed until appellate forums resolve pending legal issues. The court instructed the agency to 'go ahead with your prosecution' but cautioned it to 'Don't extend your hand beyond your statutory limits'.

The court further emphasized that agencies must avoid using statutory powers to interfere with the domains of other entities. While the Supreme Court decided to maintain the existing first information report, it prohibited further investigative action for the time being.

Historical precedents of PIL-led political investigations

Historical use of public interest litigation against political figures includes the 2021 case against then Home Minister Anil Deshmukh. The Bombay High Court allowed a CBI preliminary enquiry into the minister after former Mumbai Police Commissioner Param Bir Singh filed a petition alleging corruption. This occurred despite the state government already having a high-level committee probe into the matter.

The CBI registered an FIR against Deshmukh based on a complaint by a PIL petitioner, which eventually led to the Enforcement Directorate entering the case. Deshmukh resigned as Home Minister and spent over a year in jail before securing bail.

On 24 October 2026, Barandbench reported that the Kerala High Court ordered the police to lodge an FIR against former Kerala Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan. A lawyer who served as additional private secretary to the late former Chief Minister VS Achuthanandan filed the petition following an ED recommendation.

Judiciary's expanding role in administrative and political matters

There are 5.23 crore cases currently pending in courts across India. On 24 October 2026, the Punjab and Haryana High Court ordered the Punjab government to halt all large-scale print and social media advertising campaigns. The court mandated this stop until the government clears pending dearness allowance and dearness relief instalments for employees and pensioners.

In the West Bengal special intensive revision case, the Supreme Court refused to stay the exercise despite petitions questioning its validity. The court decided to conduct the exercise itself to ensure neutrality. It deputed more than 500 judges from West Bengal, Odisha, and Jharkhand to complete the revision.

Defining the risks of constitutional lawfare

The term lawfare describes the use or misuse of courts and legal institutions to achieve political or military objectives. Barandbench reported on 24 October 2026 that the term has been used to denote legal actions against indigenous populations in the United States. It has also been used to describe legal actions against military operations of Israel and the United States.