On January 20, 2026, the Supreme Court agreed to examine petitions filed by Kerala and Tamil Nadu. The States challenged whether the Enforcement Directorate (ED), a Central agency, is a "juristic person" that can approach High Courts to enforce its rights. A juristic person means a legal entity, like a company, that can sue or be sued like a natural person. A Bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Satish Chandra Sharma took serious note of this legal question. The Bench issued notices to the ED and scheduled the hearing four weeks later. Kerala argued that ED is only a statutory body created by law and not a legal "person." The issue arose after the ED filed a writ petition in the Kerala High Court challenging a State notification from May 2021. The notification set up a Commission of Inquiry to investigate an audio clip and letter from two accused in a gold smuggling case. The accused had alleged ED officials tried to pressure them into implicating top State officials. The Kerala government wanted to find out if there was a conspiracy against its political leaders. Tamil Nadu joined Kerala in the Supreme Court. Tamil Nadu claimed the ED abused the legal process by seeking a writ in the Madras High Court about an illegal mining case. The State called ED's writ petitions "misconceived and unmaintainable." Both States asked the Supreme Court to rule clearly on the legal status of ED. Kerala said, "A statutory body can exercise only the power conferred by the relevant statute and all statutory bodies need not be body corporate with power to sue. Only a body corporate, with power to sue specifically conferred by the statute, can claim legal status or juristic person, which the Enforcement Directorate admittedly does not have. The Deputy Director of Enforcement is only an officer under the Directorate of Enforcement and is not a juristic person." Kerala added, "Hence, he also could not have filed a writ petition. Therefore, the finding of the High Court that the Deputy Director of Enforcement has locus standi to institute the writ petition is erroneous... Neither the provisions of the Foreign Exchange Management Act nor that of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act constituted any character or right in law to entitle the ED to be recognised as one clothed with legal personality to be treated as a juristic person eligible in law to sue." Both States referenced a Supreme Court judgment that said whether a legal entity can sue or be sued is a matter of substance, not just procedure. The hearing will decide if the ED can legally file such petitions in High Courts.