ECIR Can Be Challenged Under Article 226, Rules Karnataka High Court

The Karnataka High Court on Wednesday (August 5) ruled that an Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR) can be challenged under Article 226 of the Constitution and that the Enforcement Directorate (ED) cannot place it beyond judicial scrutiny by merely calling it an ‘internal administrative document’.

A single-judge Bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna made the observations while hearing petitions filed by Gameskraft Technologies Private Limited and Nirdesa Network Private Limited.

The ED raised a preliminary objection, arguing that an ECIR is neither a statutory creation nor a document that the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) recognises.

The agency contended that the ECIR serves only as an internal administrative record to facilitate investigations under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) and, therefore, petitioners cannot challenge it through a petition under Article 226 read with Section 482 of the CrPC.

“The constitutional jurisdiction under Article 226 is neither subservient to statutory classifications nor susceptible to being curtailed by administrative terminology. The power of judicial review is part of the basic structure of the Constitution. Merely calling the foundational document an ECIR instead of an FIR cannot make the constitutional jurisdiction illusory,” the court observed.

It further noted, “The label attached to a proceeding cannot eclipse its true character. Substance must always prevail over nomenclature. If the consequences are coercive, the scrutiny must be constitutional. If liberty, property and reputation stand imperilled, judicial review cannot be denied at the threshold on a plea of semantics.”

Why the Court Rejected ED’s Stand

Disagreeing with the ED’s submissions, the court held that an ECIR, despite its description as an internal administrative document, forms the basis for significant coercive actions under the PMLA.

“An ECIR, though branded as an ‘internal administrative document’, authorises search, seizure, attachment of property, deprivation of liberty, arrest under one of the most stringent penal statutes in the country and prosecution carrying grave consequences. To describe such a document as merely administrative, yet simultaneously permit it to unleash the full coercive apparatus of the criminal law, is to embrace a contradiction that constitutional adjudication cannot countenance,” the court observed.

The High Court clarified for the first time that a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution read with Section 482 of the CrPC challenging an ECIR is maintainable. It noted that previous decisions of the Madras, Orissa, and Punjab & Haryana High Courts had only examined whether ECIRs could be challenged under Section 482 CrPC and had not considered the maintainability of writ petitions under Article 226.

“The form of the document can never eclipse its consequences; nor can nomenclature outweigh substance when the liberty of an individual and the majesty of justice are at stake. Crime constitutes the genesis; proceeds of crime constitute its consequence. One cannot exist in the absence of the other. The existence of criminal activity generating proceeds of crime forms the foundation of the entire architecture of the PMLA. Therefore, if the predicate offence itself ceases to exist—whether by discharge, acquittal or acceptance of a closure report—the superstructure erected upon such foundation cannot survive,” the court said.

Case Background

In a connected matter, the court also held that a writ petition under Article 226 read with Section 482 CrPC challenging the ED’s search and freezing action under Section 17(1A) of the PMLA is maintainable.

The petitions challenged ECIR No ECIR/BGZO/29/2025 dated November 11, 2025, along with all consequential proceedings.

The dispute originated from a complaint lodged on December 5, 2024, leading to the registration of Crime No 722 of 2024 for offences under Section 318(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and Section 66 of the Information Technology Act.

Following the investigation, the police filed a ‘B’ report concluding that there was no material warranting prosecution.

The jurisdictional court accepted the report, and the order attained finality.

Nearly six months later, the ED registered the ECIR, conducted search and seizure operations, and initiated proceedings before the Adjudicating Authority under Section 17(4) of the PMLA for retention of seized records and properties.

Rejecting the ED’s preliminary objection, the High Court concluded, “This Court, therefore, holds without the slightest hesitation that a writ petition invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the CrPC is maintainable to examine the legality of an ECIR and every consequential action founded thereon. Accordingly, the Directorate of Enforcement’s preliminary objection did not succeed.”

Also Read: Media May Report Court Proceedings But Cannot Use Courtroom Videos, Says Supreme Court