C&CC&C Law ChambersLegal research & analysis← All articles
PMLA

Can an ECIR Be Challenged in a Writ Petition? Karnataka High Court’s Gameskraft Maintainability Ruling

By C&C Law Chambers Editorial Desk · 8 reads

Can an ECIR Be Challenged in a Writ Petition? Karnataka High Court’s Gameskraft Maintainability Ruling

The Karnataka High Court has rejected the proposition that an Enforcement Case Information Report becomes immune from judicial review merely because the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 does not define it and the Enforcement Directorate describes it as an internal administrative record.

In Gameskraft Technologies Private Limited v. Directorate of Enforcement, W.P. No. 1668 of 2026, decided on 5 August 2026, Justice M. Nagaprasanna held that a petition invoking Article 226 of the Constitution read with the High Court’s inherent criminal jurisdiction is maintainable to examine an ECIR and consequential action. The decision resolved only ED’s preliminary objection. The Court directed that the petition would thereafter be heard on merits; it did not quash the ECIR or finally decide whether the predicate-offence foundation had failed.

That procedural boundary is essential. Maintainability opens the courthouse door. It does not predetermine the legality of the challenged investigation.

Factual setting

The petition was brought by Gameskraft Technologies Private Limited and Nirdesa Network Private Limited. The order records that Crime No. 722 of 2024 had been registered for an offence under Section 318(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 66 of the Information Technology Act, 2000. The police later submitted a closure report, which the competent court accepted.

ED subsequently recorded ECIR/BGZO/29/2025 on 11 November 2025. Searches followed, as did proceedings concerning retention of property and records. The petitioners challenged the ECIR and consequential measures, contending that the predicate case had already ended before the ECIR was recorded.

ED did not initially invite a decision on that contention. It raised a threshold objection: an ECIR is not an FIR, is not registered under the criminal procedure code and is merely an internal document, so a petition seeking to quash it was said to be non-maintainable before the criminal roster.

The question decided

The High Court deliberately confined the order to this question: can the legal consequences of an ECIR be examined under Article 226 and the High Court’s inherent criminal jurisdiction, or does its administrative label prevent scrutiny at the threshold?

The petition invoked Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. Section 528 preserves the High Court’s inherent power to give effect to orders under the BNSS, prevent abuse of the process of any court and otherwise secure the ends of justice. It substantially corresponds to former Section 482 CrPC. Because the authorities surveyed in the judgment arose under the CrPC, the order discusses both provisions; current proceedings must use the BNSS while respecting the applicable transition and savings rules.

Why an ECIR is different from an FIR

In Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India, (2023) 12 SCC 1, paragraphs 369 and 370, the Supreme Court held that the PMLA does not require ED to register an ECIR in the manner that Section 154 CrPC required police to register an FIR. An ECIR is an internal departmental record and the statute does not require that a copy be furnished in every case.

That classification answers questions about statutory form and compulsory supply. It does not itself answer whether constitutional courts can examine conduct and consequences flowing from an ECIR. Article 226 is a constitutional power. An administrative character ordinarily makes an act amenable to judicial review rather than placing it beyond review, subject always to the settled limits governing interference with investigations.

Conflicting High Court approaches

The Karnataka High Court considered two lines of authority. Decisions including N. Dhanraj Kochar v. Director, Directorate of Enforcement, 2022 SCC OnLine Mad 8794, Jitendra Nath Patnaik v. Enforcement Directorate, 2023 SCC OnLine Ori 7026, and Pawan Insaa v. Directorate of Enforcement, 2024 SCC OnLine P&H 5461 treated a challenge under former Section 482 CrPC as unavailable because recording an ECIR is not an act under the CrPC.

A different approach appears in Chetan Gupta v. Directorate of Enforcement and South Indian Bank Limited v. Directorate of Enforcement, 2024 SCC OnLine Ker 3936. Those decisions reason that the label attached to an ECIR cannot defeat review of consequential criminal or coercive proceedings, particularly where a final order in the predicate case is said to have removed the jurisdictional foundation.

The Gameskraft order preferred the second approach for a petition combining Article 226 with inherent jurisdiction. It did not declare that Section 528 BNSS converts an ECIR into a BNSS document. Its reasoning was that constitutional review examines the legality and consequences of state action; nomenclature does not control that inquiry.

The High Court’s reasoning

At paragraphs 18 to 23, the Court gave four connected reasons for rejecting ED’s objection.

First, the characterisation of an ECIR as internal is not a jurisdictional shield. If action founded on it affects liberty, property or legal rights, a constitutional court may examine whether the action has lawful authority.

Second, the Court treated the scheduled offence, alleged proceeds of crime, ECIR and resulting PMLA steps as a connected legal chain. Section 2(1)(u) requires property derived or obtained from criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence. The legality of the later steps may therefore require examination of whether the foundational scheduled criminal activity subsists.

Third, the Court avoided fragmenting one controversy across different jurisdictions merely because one prayer names an ECIR while others challenge consequential action. At paragraph 22 it considered such fragmentation capable of producing inconsistent decisions on the same foundational facts.

Fourth, Article 226 could not be curtailed by an administrative description adopted by the investigating agency. At paragraph 23, the Court held the combined petition maintainable to examine the ECIR and consequential action, rejected the preliminary objection and directed that the matter proceed to a merits hearing.

What the order did not decide

The order did not hold that the acceptance of every police closure report automatically extinguishes every PMLA investigation. The legal effect depends on what the closure order finally decided, whether proceedings against any other person or in any other scheduled offence survive, and whether the alleged property is linked to still-subsisting scheduled criminal activity.

It did not hold that an ECIR must be treated exactly like an FIR or supplied as a matter of course. Vijay Madanlal’s classification remains binding.

It did not quash ECIR/BGZO/29/2025, invalidate the searches, order return of property or decide the petitioners’ factual case. Those questions were expressly reserved.

It also did not establish that every petition must be entertained despite alternative statutory remedies, delay, disputed facts or an attempt to obstruct a legitimate investigation. Maintainability in the jurisdictional sense remains distinct from judicial discretion and ultimate relief.

The predicate-offence dependency

The strongest substantive issue awaiting the merits hearing concerns the scheduled-offence foundation. Vijay Madanlal states that money laundering is a separate offence concerning a process or activity connected with proceeds of crime, but “proceeds of crime” cannot exist without property derived or obtained from scheduled criminal activity. Paragraph 467(d) records that where the person is finally discharged or acquitted of the scheduled offence, or the criminal case is quashed, there can be no money-laundering action based on that extinguished offence.

Pavana Dibbur v. Directorate of Enforcement, 2023 INSC 1029, adds an important qualification. A person prosecuted for money laundering need not personally be an accused in the scheduled offence. What matters is the existence of scheduled criminal activity that generated proceeds and the person’s alleged involvement in a process or activity connected with those proceeds.

Accordingly, the Gameskraft merits inquiry cannot be reduced to whether the petitioners’ names appeared in a police case. It requires examination of the finality and scope of the closure order, the precise scheduled offence invoked, the alleged property and whether any legally cognisable proceeds-of-crime chain remained when ED acted.

Practical implications

For a petitioner, the decision supplies a forum but not a shortcut. A challenge should place the predicate FIR, final report, order accepting closure, ECIR-related action, search or retention documents and the exact chronology before the court. The pleading must identify the legal defect and should not assume that the word “ECIR” alone creates a cause of action.

For ED, reliance on the ECIR’s internal status cannot replace a response to a concrete jurisdictional challenge. Where a petitioner produces a final judicial order said to have ended the only scheduled offence, ED should identify any surviving scheduled criminal activity and the material nexus between that activity and the alleged proceeds.

For courts, the ruling supports consequence-based review while preserving restraint. Judicial review can test jurisdiction, statutory preconditions, procedural fairness and constitutional legality without supervising every investigative choice or conducting a trial on contested evidence.

Relationship with remedies under the PMLA

The PMLA provides specialised remedies against several positive orders, including adjudication and attachment decisions. Those remedies remain relevant to the court’s discretion. But an appellate remedy against one consequential order may not answer a foundational contention that the ECIR and the entire subsequent chain lacked jurisdiction from inception.

The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that the existence of an alternative remedy is generally a rule of prudence, not a complete removal of Article 226 jurisdiction, especially where the complaint concerns want of jurisdiction, breach of natural justice or a challenge to vires. Whether the court should nevertheless insist on the statutory route depends on the relief, stage and factual record.

Conclusion

The Gameskraft maintainability order establishes a careful but significant proposition: an ECIR’s non-statutory, internal character does not by itself immunise the resulting exercise of public power from constitutional review. A High Court may examine the ECIR and its consequences under Article 226 read with Section 528 BNSS when a properly pleaded legal grievance is shown.

The result remains procedural. The petitioners obtained a merits hearing, not a ruling that the ECIR or consequential proceedings were unlawful. The eventual outcome must turn on the scheduled-offence foundation, alleged proceeds, statutory compliance and the evidence placed before the Court.

This article provides general legal information and does not constitute legal advice.

Sources

Karnataka High Court, Gameskraft Technologies Private Limited v. Directorate of Enforcement, W.P. No. 1668 of 2026, order dated 5 August 2026, especially paragraphs 18–24. Judgment available through the Karnataka High Court judgments portal: https://judiciary.karnataka.gov.in/

Supreme Court of India, Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India, (2023) 12 SCC 1, judgment dated 27 July 2022, especially paragraphs 253, 269–270, 283, 369–370 and 467: https://api.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2018/20982/20982_2018_1_1501_37292_Judgement_27-Jul-2022.pdf

Supreme Court of India, Pavana Dibbur v. Directorate of Enforcement, 2023 INSC 1029, judgment dated 29 November 2023: https://api.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2022/42568/42568_2022_8_1501_48657_Judgement_29-Nov-2023.pdf

India Code, Constitution of India, Article 226: https://www.indiacode.nic.in/handle/123456789/15240

India Code, Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002, Sections 2(1)(u), 3, 5, 8, 17 and 44: https://www.indiacode.nic.in/handle/123456789/15402

India Code, Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, Sections 528 and 531: https://www.indiacode.nic.in/handle/123456789/20099

#PMLA #ECIR #JudicialReview