Chandigarh: The Punjab and Haryana High Court on Monday directed the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to register an FIR and investigate allegations of corruption involving senior officials of the Punjab government, including alleged manipulation of transfers and postings, government policies, tenders and other official decisions.




A division bench comprising Chief Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Justice Rohit Kapoor passed the directions while allowing a PIL filed by advocate Nikhil Saraf , who had alleged that despite information shared by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) with the Punjab Police under Section 66(2) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, no FIR had been registered.




The HC said, “On a cumulative assessment of the material placed on record before us in this petition, we are of the considered view that a fair and transparent investigation is required to be carried out in the matter.”




The Bench added it was “not impressed by the manner in which Punjab Police has acted so far in the matter” and entrusted the investigation to the CBI, which would register an FIR and proceed with the investigation forthwith. A report on the outcome of the investigation has been sought within two months, with the matter listed for December 7 for furnishing a status report.




The PIL arose after the ED sent a communication dated July 30, 2026, to the Director General of Police, Punjab, under Section 66(2) of the PMLA. The HC noted that the ED’s communication followed searches conducted from May 7 to 10 in a PMLA case against Ajay Sehgal and associates, during which incriminating information and documents were allegedly recovered.




According to the material placed before the HC, the ED alleged that Nitin Gohal acted as an intermediary between persons seeking government-related favours and Rajbir Ghuman , OSD to the Chief Minister, in influencing transfers and postings of government officials, leaking confidential government documents, facilitating arms licences and securing government approvals in lieu of alleged monetary and other benefits. The ED alleged that Gohal, in coordination with Rajbir Ghuman, Bir Devinder and Jitin Gohal alias Raja, collected proceeds of crime “to the tune of crores in the form of cash, land and kind”.




The ED through its counsels Additional Solicitor General, Satya Pal Jain, Senior Advocate Zoheb Hussain, assisted with Lokesh Narang, Senior Panel Counsel, also cited 21 WhatsApp chats concerning transfers and postings and 11 chats relating to policy formulation, amendments to departmental rules, administrative approvals, tender conditions, licensing matters and other government decisions. It referred to chats indicating access to confidential policy proposals, draft administrative decisions and departmental communications.




The agency further referred to six chats concerning land transactions, change of land use, demarcation proceedings, property disputes and government approvals; four chats indicating unauthorised access to and leakage of confidential government information; and 11 chats relating to payments, kickbacks and other benefits allegedly received in lieu of official favours. The ED communication also referred to arrangements for air tickets and hotel stays for Bir Devinder and Rajbir Ghuman, allegedly paid for in cash.




In its response before the High Court, the ED stated that its July 30 communication was “actually a reference made under Section 66(2) of the Act of 2002 for registering an FIR.” It stated that WhatsApp chats and communications revealed that Nitin Gohal was regularly influencing transfers, postings and movement of officials, collecting money from interested persons and coordinating with others. It also stated that Rs 20.98 lakh in cash was recovered from Gohal.




The ED said its communication contained material relating to alleged interference in transfers and postings, policy formulation, departmental rules, administrative approvals, tender conditions, licensing matters and government decisions. It also referred to alleged procurement of arms licences and access to sensitive information concerning land records, revenue matters and government approvals.




The Punjab Police, meanwhile through counsels, Senior Advocate Vikram Chaudhri, and Additional Advocate General Chanchal K Singla with Ferry Sofat Additional AG Ferry Sofat maintained that the material supplied by the ED was not fully legible. In its August 28 communication, the Punjab Bureau of Investigation stated, “From the material provided, it is observed that the chats/screenshots annexed with the communications are, in substantial part, not fully legible or clearly discernible.” It said several pages contained obscured messages and that the exact contents, context, sequence and identity of participants in several chats could not be satisfactorily ascertained.




The Punjab Police also sought the complete relevant record, including clear and legible copies of chats, metadata, search and seizure memos, the entire electronic record in original form, statements of persons named in the communications and any exculpatory material. It said the material was required “to conduct the enquiry in fair and proper manner before setting the criminal law in motion.”




The State further submitted that all documents shared by the ED were not legible and that no responsible official from the ED had appeared before the Punjab Police with the complete relevant records. The State before the court detailed various steps taken from August 3 onwards, including examination of the ED communication, legal discussions, issuance of notices to persons named in the material, meetings with government departments and letters to 29 departments seeking information.




The High Court, however, found the response inadequate. It observed, “The above fact sheet clearly shows that the information shared by ED with Punjab Police has led to a journey with all travel and no reaching.”




The Bench held, “What was required at the level of Punjab Police was to examine the contents shared by ED with it and if it did disclose commission of cognizable offence, which it does in our considered view, an FIR ought to have been registered and investigation ought to have proceeded. This is not what has happened.”




The bench also questioned how the police could issue notices to persons named in the ED material if the documents were not legible. “If the documents were not legible then how notices were issued to the persons named in the documents supplied by ED to Punjab Police?” the Bench asked, adding that “What kind of discussion with high-ranking officers took place when the documents itself were not legible remains unexplained. Issuance of notices to 29 departments to seek information on illegible documents is equally surprising. If the documents supplied by ED were not legible then on the very first opportunity when it was examined by the Punjab Police required clarification/legible copies ought to have been demanded from ED.”




It added that asking for legible copies after about a month of deliberations and issuance of notices “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, or the evidence which may be collected, if a fair investigation is held in the matter.”




The Bench held that the PIL was instituted in genuine public interest and that the material shared by the ED prima facie conveyed the commission of cognizable offences in high public office having the potential of endangering public interest. It clarified that the merits of the allegations would have to be examined during investigation and trial.




The HC also observed that the material shared by the ED was “voluminous and contains incriminating material” and said it “prima facie indicated involvement of high public officials in acts of corruption and at least required registering of FIR so that proper investigation in the matter would be carried out.”




The HC also considered the petitioner’s contention that attempts were being made to silence him after he filed the PIL. It observed that the demolition order against his construction soon after filing of the petition appeared unnatural and said the sequence was “suggestive of malice apparent on face of the record.” However, it clarified that it was not expressing any definite opinion on the legality of the petitioner’s construction.




The bench concluded that a fair and transparent investigation was required and directed the CBI to register an FIR and investigate the matter forthwith. It directed the State of Punjab and Punjab Police to render all assistance to the CBI in carrying out a fair investigation.