The Enforcement Directorate (ED) on Wednesday defended the maintainability of its petition under Article 32 of the Constitution, telling the Supreme Court about alleged complete breakdown of law and order in West Bengal and claiming that its officers were unable to perform their duties due to interference and obstruction by Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee.
The ED has sought a probe by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) against the Chief Minister and other state police officers who had accompanied her at the time of the incident at the residence of Pratik Jain, the co-founder of political consultancy firm I-PAC, on January 8.
Appearing for the ED, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta told a Bench of Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice N.V. Anjaria that the agency and its officers were entitled to approach the top court as their fundamental rights had been affected. He argued that the “rule of law” forms part of the right to equality (Article 14 of the constitution) and when it is violated, the Court can intervene.
Referring to the coal smuggling case involving proceeds of crime worth about ₹2,700 crore, Mehta said the ED officers, while discharging statutory duties, were prevented from functioning freely. He submitted that this was not an isolated incident but part of a pattern of interference in investigations carried out by central agencies. “This is my legal submission. I will demonstrate how the rule of law is violated. The ED officers who went there to discharge their duties are seeking protection of their fundamental rights,” he added.
Mehta argued that the distinction between an officer’s official and individual capacity cannot be drawn in such situations, as the consequences of obstruction are faced personally by those discharging official duties. He added that even State governments, including West Bengal, have approached the Supreme Court under Article 32 in the past and cannot now question its maintainability in the case of ED.
The ED has accused Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee of interfering in search operations conducted on January 8, this year at premises of Pratik Jain – the co-founder of the political consultancy firm I-PAC in Kolkata, and has sought a CBI probe into the incident.
During the hearing, the Bench raised concerns about entertaining such petitions under Article 32, noting the wider implications.
“There is inherent danger if we keep on entertaining. This court will be flooded with Article 32 petitions. Not by individuals. By different state governments. As a court, shall we discourage or shall we encourage this?” the Bench asked.
Mehta responded by saying such petitions should generally be discouraged, but insisted that the present case stood on a different footing as it involved individuals whose rights were allegedly affected. He said that such matters should be decided on a fact-to-fact basis.
He maintained that the matter required examination on its own facts, pointing out that ED officers had been subjected to criminal proceedings and obstruction while carrying out their duties, and that approaching local police would not ensure a fair investigation.