2 months ago
1
The Supreme Court asked the West Bengal authorities connected Wednesday (March 18, 2026) if the Directorate of Enforcement (ED) was expected to simply “look and watch” erstwhile Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee “barged” successful and obstructed ongoing raids astatine the offices of the governmental consultancy steadfast I-PAC astatine Kolkata successful January.
The remark from Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra, heading a Bench, was successful effect to the poll-bound State’s submissions that the ED was neither a “body corporate” nor a “legal oregon earthy person” to attack the apex tribunal nether Article 32 of the Constitution claiming usurpation of its “fundamental rights”. West Bengal, represented by elder advocator Shyam Divan, raised preliminary objections to the maintainability of the ED’s writ petition filed nether Article 32, seeking a Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) probe against Ms. Banerjee and the elder constabulary officers who accompanied her.
Also Read | I-PAC raids case: Supreme Court to determine if ED is ‘weaponised’ oregon ‘terrorised’
“If a Chief Minister, according to the ED, barges successful and obstructs statutory work, is it that the ED cannot determination either this tribunal nether Article 32 oregon the High Court nether Article 226. So, volition the ED beryllium near remediless? This (Ms. Banerjee’s alleged actions) is an antithetic situation, an unhappy situation. This has not happened before,” Justice Mishra addressed the State government.
The Bench asked what would beryllium the concern if different Chief Ministers, taking the cue from Ms. Banerjee, started emulating her. “The instrumentality has to germinate according to caller situations. There cannot beryllium a vacuum. It cannot beryllium that determination is nary remedy successful instrumentality to a situation,” Justice Mishra observed.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, for the ED, interjected to constituent retired that the “Chief Minister, who is the caput of the authorities successful the State, hindered a lawful ongoing probe being conducted successful the larger nationalist interest”. The ED has maintained that the raids were portion of an probe into a ₹2,742-crore ember smuggling case.
The ED is an instrumentality of the Centre, a section of the Central government, Mr. Divan submitted. The Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), which governs the ED, did not springiness the bureau the “right to sue”.
“There is nary question of the civilian liberty oregon rights of the ED which is being trampled upon here. If the ED had a complaint, the Union authorities tin invoke the archetypal jurisdiction of the Supreme Court nether Article 131 of the Constitution and attack the Supreme Court directly,” Mr. Divan said.
Senior advocator Kapil Sibal, appearing for Ms. Banerjee, said an serviceman of the ED did not person a “fundamental right” to investigate. The powerfulness is drawn from the PMLA.
EDITORIAL | Enforcement directives: On the ED raids successful West Bengal
Mr. Sibal argued that the Centre cannot writer utilizing Article 32 by utilizing the ED arsenic a front. Article 32 was lone disposable to individuals wishing to attack the Supreme Court against encroachments by the authorities and its agencies connected her civilian rights.
If Central agencies, authorities departments and 1 oregon different instrumentalities of the authorities were allowed to attack the tribunal nether Article 32, they would commencement filing petitions against each different and backstage citizens. The Centre and its agencies would usage Article 32 to bring States and their entities to court.
“The rule of federalism, a basal diagnostic of the Constitution, would beryllium successful tatters. States are not specified appendages to the Centre. Courts indispensable beryllium connected defender against the conscious whittling down of powerfulness of the States by the Union government,” Mr. Divan submitted.
Urging the tribunal to propulsion retired the ED’s petition arsenic unmaintainable, the elder advocator said the ED was a portion of the authorities machinery. It cannot travel to tribunal saying that different authorities had violated its cardinal rights.
“If Parliament wants to confer an bureau the powerfulness to sue, it would confer the powerfulness specifically. Investigation agencies are not ‘body corporates’ with a powerfulness to sue,” Mr. Divan said, requesting the apex tribunal to notation the lawsuit to a Constitution Bench.
The statutes and notifications which created different agencies, including the CBI, the Narcotics Control Bureau, the Intelligence Bureau, the Serious Fraud Investigation Office, the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, or, for that matter, the West Bengal Criminal Investigation Department, etc., were not authorised to sue, Mr. Divan said.
The tribunal scheduled the adjacent proceeding connected March 24.
Also Read | Pratik Jain: Political strategist nether ED scanner
On January 15, the apex tribunal stayed the Kolkata Police probe against the officers of the ED who conducted the raids. The State constabulary probe had been based connected allegations that delicate predetermination records of the State’s ruling Trinamool Congress party, which consults I-PAC connected electoral and governmental strategy, were “stolen” by the Central bureau officials during the raids.
The Bench had antecedently said the lawsuit raises “serious” issues relating to the scope of the investigations carried retired by Central agencies, including the ED, and interference by State agencies.
