This order decides nothing on the merits of the writ petition. The petitioner’s prayers, including any prayer for interim relief, remain undecided and will be considered by a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court on 16 November 2026. The order does not record what relief the petitioner sought, and this article does not state it.
- Case
- Mohd. Azam Khan v. Directorate of Enforcement & Ors.
- Court
- Supreme Court of India
- Decision
- Bench
- The Chief Justice of India; Joymalya Bagchi
- Case numbers
- W.P.(Crl.) No. 461/2026; Diary No. 69162/2026
- Outcome
- Order dated 5 November 2026 disposing of W.P.(Crl.) No. 461/2026: the Court declines to entertain the writ, directs transfer of the complete original record to the Registrar General of the Allahabad High Court within two days, and fixes listing before a Division Bench on 16 November 2026. No opinion on the merits is expressed.
The writ goes to the jurisdictional High Court
The Supreme Court has disposed of Mohd. Azam Khan’s writ petition against the Directorate of Enforcement by sending it to the Allahabad High Court. A Bench of the Chief Justice of India and Justice Joymalya Bagchi heard Kapil Sibal, senior counsel for the petitioner, and S.V. Raju, Additional Solicitor General, for the Directorate of Enforcement, on 5 November 2026.
The Court took the view that the appropriate recourse for the petitioner would be to first approach the jurisdictional High Court, namely the Allahabad High Court. It directed its Registry to transfer the complete original record of the writ petition to the Registrar General of the Allahabad High Court within two days from the date of the order.
The Registrar General is directed to put up the matter before the Chief Justice of the Allahabad High Court, even during the course of vacations if any, and to obtain appropriate orders for listing the case before a Division Bench of the High Court on 16 November 2026. The Division Bench is requested to pass appropriate orders on the petitioner’s prayer for interim relief on that date.
The hearing and the parties
The petitioner is Mohd. Azam Khan, and the respondents are the Directorate of Enforcement and others. The petition, W.P.(Crl.) No. 461 of 2026, was called on for hearing on 5 November 2026 with two interlocutory applications: one for exemption from filing the official translation, and one for permission to file additional documents, facts and annexures.
Kapil Sibal, senior counsel, appeared for the petitioner, with Nizam Pasha and other counsel. Tushar Mehta, Solicitor General, S.V. Raju, Additional Solicitor General, and Zoheb Hossain, senior counsel, appeared for the Directorate of Enforcement.
The order does not record the prayers in the writ petition or the facts pleaded in support of them. It records only that the Court heard both sides and formed the view that the petitioner should first approach the jurisdictional High Court.
The transfer mechanism, step by step
The order sets out a timed sequence. First, the Supreme Court Registry must transfer the complete original record to the Registrar General of the Allahabad High Court within two days of the order, that is, by 7 November 2026.
Second, the Registrar General must place the matter before the Chief Justice of the Allahabad High Court, even during vacations if any, and obtain orders for listing before a Division Bench on 16 November 2026.
Third, the Division Bench is requested to pass appropriate orders on the petitioner’s prayer for interim relief on 16 November 2026 itself. The petitioner is at liberty to amend the prayers in the writ petition and to file additional documents before the High Court, if so advised.
No opinion on the merits
The order states in terms that the Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits, and that the petitioner is at liberty to raise all his contentions before the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court.
With that, the writ petition stands disposed of, along with the pending applications. Nothing in the order grants or refuses interim relief, and nothing in it decides any question raised in the petition.
The next operative date is therefore 16 November 2026, when the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court is to consider the prayer for interim relief.
BANTHRY ANALYSISWhy the Supreme Court sends a writ to the High Court
A writ petition under Article 32 lies directly before the Supreme Court for the enforcement of fundamental rights, but the High Courts have a parallel and wider writ jurisdiction under Article 226. Where the matter turns on facts and relief that the jurisdictional High Court can fully grant, the Supreme Court frequently declines to entertain the petition and directs the petitioner to the High Court instead.
What is unusual here is not the destination but the machinery: the Court does not merely dismiss the petition with liberty to file afresh. It transfers the complete original record itself, fixes the listing date, and asks the High Court to decide interim relief on that date. That keeps the petitioner’s case alive in the same proceeding, rather than forcing a fresh filing, and it compresses the time to the first effective hearing.
The direction that the Registrar General move the matter even during vacations, if any, underlines the same point: the Court is treating the listing on 16 November 2026 as fixed, not as a date the High Court may set at its convenience.
BANTHRY ANALYSISFor law students
Note the distinction the order draws between forum and merits. The decision that the Allahabad High Court is the appropriate forum says nothing about whether the petitioner is entitled to any relief; the order says so expressly. A student who reports this as a win or a loss for either side on the merits would be misreading it.
Note also the form of the order: it is a record of proceedings disposing of the petition, not a reasoned judgment. It contains no findings of fact and no statement of law beyond the single sentence that the petitioner should first approach the jurisdictional High Court.
The case is a useful example of how the Court manages its Article 32 docket: declining to entertain a petition is itself a disposal, and the Court can pair that disposal with directions that preserve the petitioner’s access to the High Court without delay.
READING PROMPTSQuestions for a closer reading
- Why did the Supreme Court say the petitioner should first approach the Allahabad High Court, and what did it direct the Registry to do within two days?
- What must the Registrar General of the Allahabad High Court do, and what is the Division Bench requested to do on 16 November 2026?
- What does the order expressly leave open for the petitioner before the High Court, and what does it say about the merits?
