The Supreme Court has declined to interfere with an interim order of the Punjab and Haryana High Court permitting the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to conduct a preliminary enquiry into allegations of religious conversions and other activities involving Pastor Ankur Yoseph Narula, founder of the Church of Signs and Wonders, Jalandhar, and his wife, Sonia Narula.
A Bench of Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe, however, requested the High Court to first hear the parties and adjudicate upon the objection concerning the locus standi of the petitioner who initiated the public interest litigation (PIL), before proceeding to examine the substantive allegations.
The Bench clarified that its decision not to interfere with the interim order should not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the controversy.
The proceedings before the Supreme Court arose from a challenge by Ankur Narula and his wife to the High Court’s order permitting the Enforcement Directorate (ED) to share two reports, submitted in sealed covers, with the CBI. The High Court had also granted liberty to the central investigating agency to undertake a preliminary enquiry and place its findings before it in a sealed cover.
The PIL was instituted by Tejasvi Minhas, president of Punjab Bachao Morcha, against 31 respondents, including the Narulas. It raised allegations relating to religious conversions, advertisements claiming healing powers, the activities of foreign missionaries, alleged violations of the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act (FCRA), money laundering, construction activities, GST compliance, social media operations and purported political influence.
Among the reliefs sought were investigations by the ED and CBI, freezing of bank accounts, attachment of properties, restrictions on construction activities and the deactivation of certain social media accounts.
During the proceedings, the ED submitted a status report in a sealed cover before the High Court, which observed that the issues raised could be examined by the appropriate investigating agencies. Subsequently, after perusing another report in chambers, the High Court permitted the ED to transmit both reports to the CBI and authorised the latter to conduct a preliminary enquiry.
Aggrieved by this direction, the Narulas approached the Supreme Court, questioning the legality of initiating a CBI enquiry on the basis of undisclosed material.
Before the Supreme Court, the petitioners contended that the High Court had not identified any specific cognizable offence, suspected financial transaction or individual role that could justify involving the CBI. They also argued that no prima facie case had been established to warrant the intervention of a central investigating agency.
The petitioners further relied upon the responses submitted by the State police and the CBI, contending that the existing record did not disclose sufficient grounds for a preliminary enquiry. According to them, the police enquiry had not identified any credible evidence, specific victims or witnesses, or material indicating the commission of a cognizable offence.
They also pointed out that the CBI had itself stated in its affidavit that no exceptional circumstances had been demonstrated to justify its intervention, including any failure or bias on the part of the State machinery, inter-State ramifications or involvement of Central Government officials.
Another significant objection raised by the petitioners concerned the maintainability of the PIL. They argued that the High Court had proceeded to examine the allegations without first undertaking the necessary scrutiny of the PIL petitioner’s credentials, bona fides and locus standi.
The petitioners also questioned the reliance placed on sealed-cover reports, submitting that they had neither been furnished copies of the reports nor provided with a meaningful summary of the allegations or material forming the basis of the proposed enquiry. They contended that this deprived them of a fair opportunity to respond to the material relied upon against them.
The Supreme Court, however, was not persuaded to set aside the High Court’s interim directions at this stage. Instead, it requested the High Court to hear the concerned parties and determine whether the PIL petitioner had the requisite locus standi to maintain the proceedings. The High Court was thereafter asked to examine the merits of the matter.
Clarifying the limited nature of its intervention, the Bench expressly stated that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the allegations or the underlying dispute.
With these observations, the Supreme Court disposed of the special leave petition.
The matter is titled Ankur Yoseph Narula & Anr. v. Tejasvi Minhas & Ors., SLP (C) No. 31685 of 2026.
Senior Advocates Mukul Rohatgi and Abhishek Manu Singhvi appeared for the petitioners, while Solicitor General Tushar Mehta and Senior Advocate Mohan Rao represented the respondents.
The post Supreme Court refuses to interfere with CBI preliminary enquiry against pastor Ankur Narula over religious conversion allegations appeared first on India Legal.