The Punjab and Haryana High Court on Monday directed the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to register a criminal case to probe allegations of corruption linked to the Punjab Chief Minister Bhagwant Mann's office.

A Division Bench of Chief Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Justice Rohit Kapoor said it was "not impressed by the manner in which Punjab Police has acted so far" and that a fair and transparent investigation was required. The CBI has been asked to submit a report on the outcome within two months, and the State and Punjab Police have been directed to render all assistance.

The PIL was filed by advocate Nikhil Saraf, who relied on newspaper reports that the ED had collected material implicating senior Punjab officers and had written to the Punjab Police asking for an FIR, without result.

According to the ED's communication of July 30, 2026, addressed to the Director General of Police, Punjab, searches conducted between May 7 and 10, 2026, in a PMLA case (ECIR/JLZO/21/2024) against Ajay Sehgal and associates, led to the recovery of incriminating material from the premises of one Nitin Gohal. The ED alleged that Gohal acted as an intermediary between persons seeking official favours and Rajbir Ghuman, Officer on Special Duty (OSD) to the Chief Minister, influencing transfers and postings, leaking confidential documents, facilitating arms licences and securing approvals in return for cash, land and other benefits. 

The letter cited 21 WhatsApp chats on transfers and postings, along with chats on policy influence, arms licences, land matters, leakage of confidential information and kickbacks. It had 26 annexures running over 150 pages.

The ED said the letter was delivered on July 31, 2026, though no receipt was issued, and a reminder followed on August 7. The Punjab Police sent no reply until a day after the High Court issued notice on August 27.

State's Objections On Maintainability

The State of Punjab argued that the petitioner was a stranger with no locus in a criminal matter; that he had made selective disclosure of earlier PILs (CWP-PIL-98-2025 and CWP-PIL-60-2026, not entertained earlier); that he runs commercial farm-stay businesses against which proceedings were pending since 2024; that the petition rested on media reports; and that, if no FIR was registered, it was for the ED to take remedial steps. It also sought three more weeks to complete its "ongoing investigation."

Court's Findings On The Petitioner

Rejecting the objections, the Bench held the petitioner's credentials were sufficiently established, noting his seven to eight years of public interest work and association with various organisations. It held that the earlier dismissals were case-specific and laid down no principle against him. The first was not entertained because the remedy under Section 156(3) CrPC was available, and the second was premature for want of sanction under the Prevention of Corruption Act.

On the farm stay, the Court said the petitioner running it for gain under a State policy was "not sufficient to either discredit the petitioner or to refuse entertainment" of the PIL if it raised an issue of substantial public importance. It also held that the heads under Rule 6 of the Maintainability of Public Interest Litigation Rules, 2010 are illustrative, and that the issue here was one of vital public importance.

Demolition Notice Against Petitioner

The petitioner had alleged vendetta. A show cause notice was issued by GMADA on November 26, 2024, which the petitioner replied to, after which nothing happened. On September 2, 2026, soon after the PIL was filed, a demolition communication was issued, and the farm stay was to be demolished the next morning. The Bar Association's office-bearers moved an urgent application, which the Court heard at about 10 PM on September 4, when the State undertook not to proceed with the demolition. The "speaking order" referred to was not produced even before the Court.

The Bench said it was not examining the legality of the construction, but noted "undue hot-haste" by the authorities, and observed that the manner in which the action followed soon after notice in the PIL "is suggestive of malice apparent on face of the record" and "does create doubt regarding intent of high-ranking State officers."

Duty To Register FIR On Section 66(2) Information

On the second question, the Court examined Section 66(2) PMLA, which requires the ED to share information with the concerned agency for "necessary action" where it opines that any other law has been contravened. It held that the purpose of sharing is to activate an investigation which the ED is not authorised to start on its own, and that "necessary action" must lead to the initiation of the investigative process under criminal law, that is, registration of an FIR under Section 173 BNSS.

Relying on Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh (2014), the Court reiterated that registration of an FIR is mandatory where the information discloses a cognizable offence, and that credibility or genuineness of the information is not relevant at that stage. It acknowledged that preliminary inquiry is permitted in corruption cases, but only where the information does not clearly disclose a cognizable offence.

The Bench also relied on the Supreme Court's observation in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India (2023) that on receipt of information under Section 66(2), the jurisdictional police "would be obliged to register the case by way of FIR if it is a cognizable offence." It held that it seemed "inevitable" for the police to register an FIR on such information.

The State had relied on the Kerala High Court's decision in V.P. Nandakumar v. Deputy Director, ED, the Delhi High Court's in Harish Fabiani v. ED, and others. The Court distinguished these, noting that the Kerala case concerned whether an ECIR survives once the predicate FIR is quashed.

On the State's argument that, at best, the ED could approach the Magistrate, the Court declined to dwell on the ED's remedies. It held that, in the peculiar facts, it must act in public interest "notwithstanding the fact that ED, on its own, may have other options in law to force the jurisdictional police to register an FIR."

"Journey With All Travel And No Reaching"

The State had not filed a reply on merits, but placed before the Court a note, not supported by affidavit, listing the steps taken by the Punjab Bureau of Investigation (PBI). The Court said the note "raises more questions than it answers," and noted that the PBI examined the ED's letter and annexures from August 3 onwards and issued notices to several persons named in the chats. Only on August 28, a day after the High Court issued notice, did it write to the ED that the documents were illegible and seek legible copies.

The Court asked how notices could be issued to persons named in the documents, and how 29 departments could be written to, if the documents were illegible. It said the request for legible copies after a month of deliberation "renders the note furnished to us rather hollow and lends credence to the petitioner's contention that time is being bought only to formulate strategies to save guilty and manipulate the available evidence."

 Rajbir Ghuman, the OSD to the Chief Minister, was neither associated with the preliminary inquiry nor was his response sought.

Even if some documents were illegible, the substantial material was sufficient to register an FIR and proceed.

The Court said the fact sheet showed "a journey with all travel and no reaching." It also referred to Nitin Gohal's statement recorded by the ED, in which he admitted forwarding transfer requests, sharing a confidential government policy presentation with a foodgrain businessman, and booking travel for Ghuman and others, but denied taking favours and said he only did "data entry type work."

Concluding that the ED's material prima facie disclosed cognizable offences in high public office, and that the argument that the PBI's preliminary investigation was being used to distort evidence and shield senior officers was "not entirely sans merit," the Court directed the CBI to register an FIR and investigate "forthwith." 

The Court clarified that it was expressing no definite opinion on the merits, which can only be tested at investigation and trial, and that its conclusion was in "the peculiar facts of the case."

The petition was disposed of, with the matter listed on December 7, 2026 for furnishing the status report.

Appearances: Petitioner-in-person Nikhil Saraf; Rohit Sud (President), Parampreet Singh Bajwa (Secretary) and others for the Punjab and Haryana High Court Bar Association;

Senior Advocate Vikram Chaudhari, Additional AG Chanchal K. Singla and others for the State of Punjab;

ASG Satya Pal Jain, Senior Advocate Zoheb Hossain and Lokesh Narang for the ED; ASG Satya Pal Jain and Saigeeta Srivastava for the MHA/Union of India; Ravi Kamal Gupta for the CBI.

Case Title: Nikhil Saraf v. State of Punjab and Others

Click here to read order