Delhi High Court - Orders
Fiitjee Limited & Ors vs Directorate Of Enforcement & Ors on 18 March, 2026
Author: Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav
Bench: Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav
$~70
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 14196/2025 and CM APPL. 58332/2025, CM APPL.
61270/2025, CM APPL. 65416/2025, CM APPL. 71682/2025, CM
APPL. 71713/2025
FIITJEE LIMITED & ORS. .....Petitioners
Through: Mr. Dayan Krishanan Sr. Advocate
and Mr. Kunal Tandan Sr. Advocate
with Mr Shiv Sapra, Mr Aviral
Tripathi Mr Vanshay Kaul Kochhar,
Advocates.
versus
DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Anupam S Sharrma, Mr. Vashisht
Rao, Ms. Riya Sachdeva, Ms. Amisha
P Dash,Mr Abhiyanta Singh,
Advocates for ED.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV
ORDER
% 18.03.2026
1. The press release dated 26.04.2025 is called in question by the petitioner on the ground that the same is in contravention of the Office Memorandum bearing F. NO.15011/48/2009-SC/ST-W dated 01.04.2010 issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India.
2. Mr. Dayan Krishnan, learned senior counsel for the petitioner, has taken the Court through the press release and explained that there are various presumptions and assumptions which have been arrived at by the This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 20/03/2026 at 21:51:13 Directorate of Enforcement (hearing after the 'ED') which are completely beyond its jurisdiction. He seeks to place reliance on the decisions in the cases of Mahua Moitra v. Directorate of Enforcement1; Devangana Kalita v. Delhi Police2; State of Goa, through its Chief Secretary & Ors.; and on the interim order dated 19.01.2021 passed by this Court in the case of Disha A. Ravi v. State (NCT of Delhi) & Ors.3.
3. The aforesaid submission is strongly opposed by Mr. Sharma, learned counsel for the ED. He justifies and takes the Court through Office Memorandum dated 01.10.2010 and submits that the same is the cumulative effect of the entire material that has been collected by the ED so far.
4. He submits that there has been a large-scale conspiracy and fraud committed by the petitioner. There have been multiple FIRs in different States.
5. However, the Court is not adjudicating with respect to the gravity of overall offence which the petitioner might have committed. The Court is only called upon to rule as to whether the press release dated 26.04.2025 fulfils the criteria laid down in the Office Memorandum dated 01.10.2010.
6. The prima facie perusal of the press release would prima-facie indicate that judgmental aspersions are made. The Clause VII of the Office Memorandum dated 01.10.2010 clearly states that no opinionated and judgmental statements should be made by the police while briefing the media.
7. At this stage, Mr. Sharma prays for time to enable him to take instructions as to whether the ED would like to revise the press release or 1 2024 SCC OnLine Del 1264 2 2020 SCC OnLine Del 867 This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 20/03/2026 at 21:51:13 the Court to finally adjudicate the matter.
8. List on 08.04.2026.
PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J MARCH 18, 2026 aks 3 2021:DHC:614 This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 20/03/2026 at 21:51:13