The BRICS TimesThe Supreme Court sharply rebuked West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee on Wednesday. The court said no Chief Minister can endanger democracy by walking into an active ED investigation. The remarks came during a hearing on the Enforcement Directorate’s petition seeking a CBI probe against Banerjee for her alleged interference in the IPAC raid.
Supreme Court delivers sharp rebuke to West Bengal CM over IPAC raid interference
The Supreme Court on Wednesday came down hard on West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee. It slammed her for allegedly interfering with the Enforcement Directorate’s search operation at political consultancy firm I-PAC in Kolkata. A bench of Justices PK Mishra and NV Anjaria heard the matter. The court made some of the strongest remarks seen in the case so far.
“This is not a dispute between the State and the Union. A Chief Minister of any State cannot walk in the midst of an investigation, put the democracy in peril, and then say…don’t convert this into a dispute between the State and the Union. This is per se an act committed by an individual who happens to be the Chief Minister keeping the whole democracy in jeopardy,” the bench said.
Court says even constitutional giants never imagined this situation
The bench added that India’s greatest legal minds never envisioned such a crisis.
“You have taken us through Seervai, Ambedkar, but none of them would have conceived this situation in this country that one day a sitting Chief Minister will walk into the office…”
The court was responding to arguments by Senior Advocate Meneka Guruswamy. She represented a West Bengal police officer. She challenged the very maintainability of the plea.
“I am on maintainability. When and if we come to the facts, then certainly we will convince your lordships. When we come to the facts, your lordships will see there is no situation as described by the other side. There was no criminal conduct, there was no intimidation, there was no infraction,” Guruswamy said.
Bench rejects call for referral to a larger bench
The court was not impressed by arguments that the case needed a five-judge constitutional bench. It made its position very clear.
“In every question, there will be some question of law. That doesn’t mean every 32 petition is referred to a 5-judge bench,” the bench stated.
Guruswamy pushed back, saying no such legal proposition had come up in 75 years. The court responded that states now regularly file Article 32 petitions. Guruswamy acknowledged, “Your lordships have always reined them in.”
The bench questioned whether there was even a substantial question of law here.
“What is that substantial question of law that it needs to be referred to a 5-judge bench? This is not an appeal. These are Article 32 petitions,” the judges said.
Court refuses to ignore ground realities of West Bengal
The bench made a striking observation. It said it could not turn a blind eye to the ground realities in West Bengal.
“Before the other bench where the FIR is under question, we have seen the situation that several judicial officers had been kept hostage. And you want the petitioner should have gone to a magistrate under Section 200? We cannot shut our eyes to the reality of what’s happening. We cannot lose sight of the practical situation which is present in the State. Don’t compel us to make observations. This is not a litigation between Ram vs Shyam. This is an extraordinary situation where the contours are totally different. Court has to take decision keeping in view socio-political realities. It is an ever evolving process,” the bench declared.
These remarks addressed Senior Advocate Sidharth Luthra’s argument. He had said the ED should have gone to a magistrate with its complaint.
Former DGP’s lawyer says ED has no fundamental right to investigate
Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi appeared for former DGP Rajeev Kumar. He argued the ED could not maintain this petition at all.
“You cannot do indirectly what you can’t do directly. The ED officer’s petition is nothing. He has no existence, no identity, except as a person discharging his duties under the statute. He is only acting as a person discharging his statutory duties,” Singhvi contended.
The court pushed back immediately.
“Does the directly indirectly principle applies to administrative law or does it apply to a petition for breach of fundamental rights?”
Singhvi held his ground. He said ED officers had no fundamental right to investigate.
“ED officer can have a Article 21 right as a human being but while acting as an officer cannot claim a separate right,” he told the bench.
He also rejected the doctrine of parens patriae being applied here.
“It will apply only if the affected party comes. ED itself is a parens patriae. Parens patriae is the last refuge for the ED. They themselves are the big boss,” Singhvi said.
What happened at the IPAC office on January 8
The background of this case is crucial to understand. Chief Minister Banerjee entered the I-PAC office in Kolkata on January 8 this year. She also visited the residence of IPAC co-founder Pratik Jain. The ED was actively conducting searches there. The agency alleged she removed documents and electronic devices from the premises.
Banerjee defended her move. She said the material contained sensitive information belonging to her political party, the Trinamool Congress. IPAC had been working with TMC since the 2019 Lok Sabha elections.
The ED told a different story. It said the searches were part of a money laundering probe. The case was registered in 2020 against businessman Anup Majee. Majee faces allegations of running a coal smuggling syndicate. According to the agency, the syndicate illegally excavated coal from ECL leasehold areas in West Bengal. Much of this coal allegedly went to the Shakambhari Group of companies.
Supreme Court’s earlier interventions in this case
The ED moved the Supreme Court under Article 32. It sought a CBI probe against Banerjee and state officials. On January 15, the court issued notices to Banerjee, former DGP Rajeev Kumar, and other officials. It had said there would be lawlessness if it did not step in.
The state countered that IPAC searches were not actually obstructed. It pointed to the ED’s own panchnama as evidence. The state also challenged the Article 32 petition’s maintainability. It argued the provision can be used only by citizens to enforce fundamental rights.
On March 24, the court questioned that logic too. It asked whether ED officers stop being citizens of India simply because they work for the agency.
Arguments in the case will continue on Thursday.
