A Former Chief Minister Cannot Claim Special Immunity from Investigation Under the Guise of Treaty Secrecy: Punjab & Haryana High Court Allows ED to Inspect Tax Records

“Foreign Tax Info Can Be Shared for Investigation — Agreement with France Not a Barrier….A Stranger May Inspect Court Records for Sufficient Reasons — Enforcement Directorate Has Locus Under Law”:,  On 3rd September 2025, the Punjab and Haryana High Court delivered a notable judgment , dismissing petitions filed by Amarinder Singh and his son Raninder Singh, challenging the Enforcement Directorate’s (ED) permission to inspect sensitive tax documents relating to alleged undisclosed foreign assets.

Justice Tribhuvan Dahiya held that ED, as an investigating agency under FEMA, had the legal authority to inspect the documents filed in judicial proceedings. The Court further ruled that there is no bar under the Indo-French Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) preventing such inspection when done for investigation purposes and under judicial supervision.

“It Is for the Court to Be Satisfied, Not the Accused, Whether Inspection Can Be Allowed”: ED Permitted to View Judicial File

The core legal dispute arose when the Enforcement Directorate sought permission to inspect documents attached with the Income Tax Department's complaint, which alleged concealment of foreign assets by Amarinder Singh and his family. These documents were received from French tax authorities under Article 28 of the DTAA between India and France.

The petitioners objected, arguing that the information was confidential and protected under Article 28, which restricts dissemination of information shared between contracting states.

The Court rejected this contention and upheld the revisional court’s interpretation: “The matter regarding inspection was between the Enforcement Directorate and the Court. So, it was for the Court seized with the matter to record its satisfaction and allow the inspection of the record to the stranger.”

“Double Taxation Agreement Does Not Impose a Blanket Secrecy”: Reliance on Ram Jethmalani v. Union of India

Justice Dahiya relied extensively on the Supreme Court’s landmark ruling in Ram Jethmalani & Ors. v. Union of India (2011) 8 SCC 1, where the Apex Court had clarified that Article 26 of the DTAA (similar to Article 28 in Indo-French context) does not prevent disclosure in judicial proceedings.

The High Court reaffirmed: “There is no absolute bar of secrecy. Instead, the agreement specifically provides that the information may be disclosed in public court proceedings.”

Further quoting Ram Jethmalani, the Court observed: “Comity of nations cannot be predicated upon clauses of secrecy that could hinder constitutional proceedings or criminal investigations.”

Thus, when the ED sought access not for public dissemination but for investigation of possible offences under FEMA, the Court held the inspection lawful.

"If the State Cannot Investigate Financial Crimes, It Would Paralyse the Justice System”: Court Rules ED Is Not a ‘Stranger’

Amarinder Singh’s counsel had argued that the ED was a “stranger” to the Income Tax case and could not inspect documents placed in court by the I-T Department. They further invoked the rule of confidentiality under international tax cooperation.

Justice Dahiya rejected this argument, invoking Rule 2 of Part-C, Chapter 16, Punjab and Haryana High Court Rules (Vol. 4), which permits inspection of pending court records by even a “stranger,” provided sufficient cause is shown.

The Court observed: “The Enforcement Directorate is an independent investigation agency under the FEMA. If inspection to the ED is not allowed… it would create hurdle in the investigation.”

“Disclosure of Foreign Bank Info in Judicial Proceedings Does Not Violate Treaty Obligations”: DTAA No Bar to ED's Investigation

One of the most important legal questions addressed was whether Article 28 of the Indo-French DTAA bars any authority other than the I-T Department from accessing the information shared by French authorities.

The Court clarified: “The Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement, particularly Article 28, regulates dissemination of such information, but permits use in judicial or enforcement proceedings.”

Citing the Supreme Court’s interpretation in Ram Jethmalani, the High Court noted that the phrase ‘public court proceedings’ includes proceedings beyond tax matters, and excluding such access would render Article 28’s final clause redundant.

“Petitioners Cannot Oppose ED’s Access When I-T Department Itself Has Placed the Documents on Record”: Court Affirms Legal Position

Justice Dahiya held that only the Government of India could object to disclosure under international tax treaties—not the accused individuals.

“It is the Government of India which has entered into this Agreement… In case disclosure of information causes any violation… it is for the Department to oppose it, and not for the petitioners.”

The Court stressed that once documents have entered the judicial domain through a formal complaint by a Government authority, another wing of the State can inspect them for legitimate legal purposes.

“Right to Privacy Must Yield to Public Interest When State Has Prima Facie Material of Wrongdoing”: Court Balances Competing Interests

The petitioners also invoked the right to privacy, alleging that their reputations could be harmed if confidential tax information was misused.

Justice Dahiya countered with a firm constitutional balance: “Details of bank accounts can be used by those who want to harass... But once the State, through properly conducted investigations, is able to establish prima facie grounds of wrongdoing, the right of others in the nation to be informed enters the picture.”

Thus, the Court found no infringement of privacy, as the ED’s inspection was a State function, not a public leak.

ED Can Inspect Documents to Investigate Alleged Foreign Asset Concealment — Privacy and Treaty Clauses Do Not Bar Access

Rejecting all three connected petitions filed by Amarinder Singh and Raninder Singh, the Court firmly held:

“There is no restriction on the ED to access the information/documents placed on record before the Magistrate by the I-T Department for the purpose of investigation.”

Accordingly, the ED was allowed to inspect the judicial file, subject to the caveat that such information shall not be publicly disseminated unless permitted by law.

Date of Decision: 3rd September 2025