I-PAC raids: SC rebukes Bengal CM for barging into ED investigation, says allegations ‘based on some facts’

The Supreme Court on Tuesday rebuked West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee for allegedly barging in during an Enforcement Directorate (ED) raid on political consultancy firm I-PAC in January this year as it observed that the allegations against her are “based on some facts” and that is why the probe agency is seeking a CBI investigation.

A Bench of Justices PK Mishra and NV Anjaria was hearing ED’s writ petition alleging that West Bengal CM Mamata Banerjee and state police officers obstructed its search of the office of I-PAC, the political consultant of All India Trinamool Congress (TMC).

Advertisement

The state of West Bengal has opposed the maintainability of the writ petition, saying that allowing the ED, a probe agency of the central government, to file a writ petition against a state government will be “dangerous to the federal structure.”

During the hearing, Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, representing the state of West Bengal, argued that if a public officer is being obstructed from performing his duties he cannot file an Article 32 petition. “He also can’t file 226 petition. There will be a prosecution launched for the obstruction for violating his right to discharge his functions,” Sibal said as he sought to dismiss ED’s writ petition seeking a CBI probe.

Drawing the court’s attention to the cause title of the petition, Sibal said that a Deputy Director mentioned in the cause title was nowhere on the scene. “This is not a PIL. A person who moves the court under Article 32 has to specifically set out which fundamental right of his has been violated,” he said.

Sibal also pointed out that the ED has objected to the case being investigated by the state police and mentioned that this is covered by several judgments of the top court. “They have a remedy and they should not file an Article 32 petition,” the advocate appearing for West Bengal argued.

On this, Justice PK Mishra asked, “If the CM barges into an ED investigation, 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 remedy?”

As Sibal intervened, saying “your lordships are assuming that the CM has committed offence,” Justice Mishra shot back, “We are not assuming anything. Every allegation is based on some facts, if there are no facts there is no need to investigate. That is what they are praying for, for CBI to investigate.”

Senior Advocate Kalyan Banerjee, appearing for Mamata Banerjee, argued that for a CBI investigation, the state has to give consent and in other cases the constitutional court has the power. However, he added, it can be done when a complaint is there.

“What is the complaint? Article 32 petition is not a complaint,” Banerjee said.

When Banerjee pointed out that the ED was sitting silent for two-three days and now doing this just before elections, Justice Mishra asked him not to argue on this, saying there is no timing for a decision.

“The court does not want a political party to win an election. We do not want to be a party to a crime also. There is no timing for a decision. Don’t argue on this. We know the timing of the request,” Justice Mishra added.