Why Punjab challenged HC order against CM Mann aide: ‘irreversible consequences if FIR lodged’

A Bench of Justices M M Sundresh and Prasanna B Varale issued notices to the Centre, the CBI, the Enforcement Directorate (ED) and others on a Special Leave Petition filed by the Punjab government challenging the Punjab and Haryana High Court’s October 5 order directing the Central Bureau of Investigation CBI to register an FIR and submit an investigation report within two months.

The FIR concerns allegations of cash for transfers, postings, tenders and policy decisions. Ghuman has evaded CBI summons twice for joining the probe.

The Punjab government had sought an interim stay on the High Court’s order, arguing that registration of an FIR against “senior state functionaries” based on untested material could have “irreversible” consequences even if the order was subsequently set aside.

“If the impugned judgment is not stayed, the CBI will register an FIR against high public functionaries of the State on untested material, in disregard of Section 17A and Section 6 of the DSPE Act, and the situation will become irreversible,” the State had submitted in its SLP.

In its SLP, the state government also sought permission for the Punjab Bureau of Investigation to complete its preliminary enquiry and submit an action-taken report within a time frame fixed by the Supreme Court. It contended that the High Court had directed immediate registration of an FIR without adequately considering its objections to the maintainability of the public interest litigation (PIL) filed by advocate Nikhil Saraf. It argued that Saraf was neither the author nor the recipient of the communications sent by the ED to the Punjab Police and that his petition relied on newspaper reports and a communication whose source, the state claimed, had not been disclosed.

The ED had sent communications to the Punjab Director General of Police on July 24, July 31 and August 7, 2026, concerning alleged corruption and seeking action. The material was subsequently placed before the High Court, which held that the allegations warranted an independent and fair investigation.

Story continues below this ad

The state argued that the High Court should have decided its objection to the petitioner’s credentials and the maintainability of the PIL before proceeding to the merits. It also questioned whether information shared by the ED under Section 66(2) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act automatically required the recipient agency to register an FIR or whether the state police retained the authority to assess the material and conduct a preliminary enquiry.

The government maintained that its “Bureau of Investigation had already initiated a preliminary enquiry after receiving the ED’s communication dated July 30…records and information had been requisitioned from the departments concerned, persons connected with the material had been examined, and the ED had been asked to provide complete and authenticated records supporting its allegations.”

The State had submitted that a “preliminary enquiry is permissible in corruption cases and that the Bureau was examining the material before deciding the appropriate course of action in accordance with law”. It also referred to its undertaking before the High Court “to complete the enquiry within three weeks, subject to the ED furnishing complete, legible and certified records.”

According to the petition, the High Court did not take this undertaking into account while directing the CBI to register an FIR immediately.

Story continues below this ad

A key objection raised by the government concerns Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, which provides for prior approval before an enquiry, inquiry or investigation into alleged offences related to recommendations or decisions taken by public servants in the discharge of official functions. The state argued that the allegations concerning transfers, postings, tenders and policy decisions fell within the ambit of this provision.

It also invoked Section 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, pointing out that Punjab had withdrawn general consent to the CBI on November 8, 2020. The government contended that the High Court had not adequately justified the central agency’s intervention despite the withdrawal of consent.

The petition further questioned the transfer of the investigation to the CBI, arguing that the High Court had not established that the state’s Bureau of Investigation was incapable of conducting a fair probe or was biased. The government maintained that statutory safeguards governing investigations into decisions taken by public servants could not be bypassed by ordering immediate registration of an FIR.

The High Court, however, had held that the material shared by the ED prima facie indicated the involvement of senior public officials in alleged corruption and warranted a proper investigation. It had expressed dissatisfaction with the manner in which the Punjab Police handled the matter.

Story continues below this ad

The High Court had also taken note of the petitioner’s allegation that action against his property followed the filing of the PIL. It observed that a demolition order passed nearly a year and 10 months after an earlier notice, shortly after the petition was filed, raised questions about the intent of senior state officers. It clarified that it was not expressing a conclusive opinion on the legality of the construction.