Thursday, 5 November 2026
Supreme Court of India
Criminal Law

Supreme Court Directs Mohd. Azam Khan to Allahabad High Court, Fixes 16 November Hearing

Mohd. Azam Khan v. Directorate of Enforcement & Ors. Decided 5 November 2026

Published: · NyayVidhan · 2 min read

In Mohd. Azam Khan v. Directorate of Enforcement, the Supreme Court said the appropriate recourse for the petitioner is first to approach the Allahabad High Court (para 2). It directed that the record of his writ petition be sent to that High Court within two days and that the case be listed before a Division Bench on 16.11.2026, which is requested to pass appropriate orders on his prayer for interim relief (paras 3-5). It expressed no opinion on the merits and disposed of the petition (paras 7-8).

Supreme Court Directs Mohd. Azam Khan to Allahabad High Court, Fixes 16 November Hearing

Judgment Intelligence

Disposed Of
Mohd. Azam Khan v. Directorate of Enforcement & Ors.
Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 461 of 2026 (Diary No. 69162 of 2026)
Court
Supreme Court of India
Date of Decision
5 November 2026
Bench
Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi
Final Outcome

Writ petition disposed of: petitioner to approach the Allahabad High Court; record to be transferred within two days; listing before a Division Bench on 16.11.2026, which is requested to pass appropriate orders on interim relief; liberty to amend prayers; no opinion on merits (paras 2-8).

Source Supreme Court of India, www.sci.gov.in — order dated 5 November 2026 · Court's copy

Key holdings

  1. The appropriate recourse for the petitioner is first to approach the Allahabad High Court (para 2).
  2. The Registry must transfer the complete original record to the Registrar General of that High Court within two days (para 3).
  3. The case is to be listed before a Division Bench on 16.11.2026, which is requested to pass appropriate orders on the interim relief prayer (paras 4-5).
  4. The petitioner may amend his prayers and file additional documents; no opinion is expressed on the merits and all contentions remain open (paras 6-7).

Judgment digest by NyayVidhan: a summary of the court's judgment, not its text. The judgment itself is the authoritative version.

Brief Facts

The petitioner, Mohd. Azam Khan, filed Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 461 of 2026 against the Directorate of Enforcement and others. The Court heard both sides, the Additional Solicitor General of India appearing for the Directorate of Enforcement (para 1). The order does not say what the petition challenges or what the case against him concerns. It records that the petition contained a prayer for interim relief (para 5).

Court's Findings

The Court said it seemed to it that ‘the appropriate recourse for the petitioner would be to firstly approach the jurisdictional High Court’, namely the Allahabad High Court (para 2). To expedite the hearing there, it directed its Registry to transfer the complete original record to the Registrar General of that High Court within two days (para 3). The Registrar General was directed to place the matter before the Chief Justice of the Allahabad High Court, even during vacations, if any, and to obtain orders for listing before a Division Bench on 16.11.2026 (para 4). The Division Bench is requested to pass appropriate orders on the petitioner's prayer for interim relief on that date (para 5). The Court left the petitioner at liberty to amend his prayers and file additional documents (para 6).

Legal Principle

The order lays down no new rule. It shows the Court asking a petitioner to approach the jurisdictional High Court first (para 2) and arranging for an early hearing there, while expressing no opinion on the merits and leaving all contentions open (para 7).

NyayVidhan's view · Practice note

Why It Matters

This order shows the Court asking a petitioner who came directly to it to approach the jurisdictional High Court first (para 2), while taking steps to avoid delay: the record is transferred within two days, and the High Court's Chief Justice is asked to list the case before a Division Bench on a fixed date (paras 3-4). A reader should note what the order does not do: it does not decide the interim relief prayer, which it leaves to the Division Bench (para 5), and it expresses no opinion on the merits (para 7). The petitioner may amend his prayers and file additional documents (para 6).

Editorial comment by the NyayVidhan Editorial Desk. It is not part of the Court's judgment and is not legal advice.

Join our WhatsApp Group
✕

Try: POCSO, IBC, Electoral Bond, Article 370, NDPS Act, Bail Conditions, SC Contempt