On Wednesday, the Supreme Court severely rebuked Mamata’s state government in strong terms. The Court explicitly declared that the hearing of this case would not be adjourned any further. The apex court summarily dismissed the plea for adjournment filed on behalf of the West Bengal government.
During the hearing of the case concerning the ED’s search operation at the residence of I-PAC chief Pratik Jain—an incident in which State Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee intervened to seize all documents, files, and mobile phones from the ED officials—the Supreme Court severely rebuked the Mamata-led state government. On Wednesday, the apex court explicitly declared that the hearing of this case would not be adjourned any further. The Supreme Court summarily dismissed the plea for a stay filed by the West Bengal government.
ALSO READ : The BJP’s First Masterstroke in the Battle for Nabanna. Mamata Rattled by the ‘Suvendu Scare’
Table of Contents
The State Government’s Claim
The State has questioned whether the I-PAC lawsuit is even maintainable before the Supreme Court. Before a bench made up of Justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and NV Anjaria on Wednesday, the State’s attorney presented three distinct legal issues: (1) Does Article 32 of the Constitution allow the ED to petition the Supreme Court? (2) Despite being a government agency, are they able to assert fundamental rights? (3) In addition, how can the ED, as a central organization, bring legal action against the government?
Senior Advocate Shyam Divan, representing the State, requested an adjournment during today’s hearing before the Supreme Court bench, which consists of Justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and N.V. Anjaria. He said that time was needed to prepare a response to the additional accusations and facts included in the “rejoinder affidavit” that the ED had filed.
In his appearance before the Supreme Court today, Mr. Diwan, the State’s attorney, contended that either the investigation agency might have filed a FIR or the ED may have launched a lawsuit under Article 131 of the Constitution. Mr. Diwan emphasized the jurisdiction of the ED and added that although the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) has given the central investigative agency certain responsibilities and powers, it has not been given the right to file a lawsuit. Several investigating agencies, such as the CBI and CID, do not have the authority to bring legal action against one another, according to the State’s attorneys. He said that the constitutional system of checks and balances would be compromised if various agencies filed lawsuits against one another.
Menaka Guruswamy, another State attorney, restated the same argument, claiming that more time was required because the ED’s materials included new information.
On behalf of the State, it was further submitted to the Supreme Court that they would be placed at a ‘handicap’ if required to present arguments without a written response, and that the matter is extremely sensitive.
Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee’s attorney, Kapil Sibal, also stated during his Supreme Court appearance: “What the ED is essentially seeking is for the Court to direct the CBI to conduct the investigation.” The ED is unable to make such a demand, though. Additionally, he rejected the ED’s claims that fundamental rights had been violated. “The ED officials have faced threats,” the judge had said. “Suppose they were indeed threatened—even in that scenario, which fundamental right has been violated here?” Sibal countered. Sibal asked the Court, echoing Diwan’s views, “The ED possesses no authority beyond the scope of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act.” Which fundamental rights are they claiming, then?
ED’s Claim
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing on behalf of the ED, strongly opposed this plea. In a categorical statement to the court, he submitted that the documents in question had been filed four weeks ago; consequently, the State had ample time to file a response, yet it deliberately chose not to do so, as it is attempting to delay the hearing.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, speaking on behalf of the ED, told the Supreme Court that the ED’s main complaint was about the protection of its staff during the search operations and that they are not requesting a CBI investigation. According to the investigating agency, its agents encountered threats and procedural obstacles during the raid at the I-PAC office.
Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra said
Justice Mishra said, “Is the right to initiate a case itself being questioned here? What should the ED do if the Chief Minister steps in during an investigation? By such reasoning, nothing could be done even if a chief minister from a different state intervened. This is not a pleasant scenario at all; it is a completely unwanted event. The Justice went on to inquire, “Who is left to decide this subject if a petition is found inadmissible under Article 226—and likewise under Article 32? How would such an act be dealt with if another Chief Minister were to visit the premises of a different institution in the future?
The Supreme Court made it apparent that the current case is extremely important after hearing all of the arguments. The Court further noted that if a central agency’s operations are hindered, a remedy for such interference must be provided.
This case’s next hearing is set for next week. But it’s already clear that this Supreme Court case is about more than just a single search operation; it’s about Center-State relations, the authority of investigative agencies, and constitutional interpretation, and it has the potential to develop into a significant legal dispute.