SC asks if ED can seek relief from state in case involving CM Mamata Banerjee

The Supreme Court on Tuesday (March 24) asked whether it would be appropriate for the Enforcement Directorate (ED) to seek a remedy from the State government when the allegations are against the head of the government itself.

The top court made the remarks during the hearing of the preliminary objections raised by the West Bengal government against the case filed by the ED and some of its officers under Article 32 of the Constitution.

The ED has sought a CBI investigation into the alleged obstruction by West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee to the Central agency’s raid at the office of I-PAC, the political consultant of the ruling Trinamool Congress (TMC).

What the court said

The oral remarks were made by the bench of Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice NV Anjaria.

Also Read: SC questions West Bengal on Mamata's alleged interference in ED's I-PAC raids

"The CM barges into an ED investigation, and your idea of remedy for the ED is to go to the state government, which is headed by the CM and inform them about it and seek a remedy?" asked Justice Mishra.

SC on ED officers’ rights

Pointing out that some ED officers have also filed the petition in their individual capacity, the court asked the counsel opposing ED’s plea whether the Central agency’s officers ceased to become Indian citizens merely because they are officers of the probe agency.

Also Read: I-PAC case: Legal implications of SC order and impact of Centre-state tussle

"Please concentrate on the fundamental right of the officers of the ED qua whom the offence has been committed. Otherwise, you will miss the point. You can’t forget the second petition which is preferred by individual officers who are the victims of the offence. You will be in difficulty, I am telling you. Don’t just say ED, ED, ED," said Justice Mishra as quoted by the Bar and Bench.

Sibal’s argument

The court made the remark following the argument made by senior advocate Kapil Sibal, representing the West Bengal government. Sibal argued that the ED could not file a petition under Article 32 as there is a remedy to approach the police.

Also Read: SC disturbed by Calcutta HC chaos, calls ED charges against Mamata ‘very serious’

"Any obstruction in performance of a statutory duty is not in violation of a fundamental right. If someone obstructs a police officer, he can’t file a 32 petition. There is a statutory remedy. Otherwise every police officer will file a 32. We can’t interpret a law in the context of a particular situation and then open a Pandora’s Box inconsistent with the basic features of criminal law," Sibal said.

"He (ED officer) only has a right under a statute to investigate. And violation of that right is not a violation of fundamental right… There’s no question of fundamental rights," he added.

The backdrop

West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee had entered the I-PAC office and the residence of its co-founder on January 8 when Enforcement Directorate (ED) officials were conducting searches in connection with a money laundering investigation. It has been alleged that certain documents and electronic devices were taken away from the premises during her visit.

Also Read: ED moves SC seeking FIR against Mamata Banerjee, flags obstruction in I-PAC probe

Banerjee maintained that the material related to her political party, noting that I-PAC has worked with the Trinamool Congress since the 2019 Lok Sabha elections. The ED, however, stated that the searches formed part of its probe into a 2020 case involving businessman Anup Majee, who is accused of running a coal smuggling network in West Bengal.

According to the agency, coal was illegally extracted from Eastern Coalfields Limited's leasehold areas and supplied to multiple buyers, including the Shakambhari Group.

The ED subsequently moved the Supreme Court under Article 32, alleging interference in its investigation and seeking a CBI probe.