The Supreme Court on Wednesday said that West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee allegedly obstructing searches being conducted by the Enforcement Directorate at the premises of political consultancy I-PAC is “not a happy situation”, The Indian Express reported.
Describing the incident as an “unusual happening”, a bench of Justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and NV Anjaria said that a central agency cannot be left without a remedy when its functioning is interrupted.
The Supreme Court asked if there can be no legal remedy to stop such situations from repeating.
The bench made the remarks while hearing a petition filed by the Enforcement Directorate against Banerjee and several West Bengal Police officers for allegedly obstructing the searches on January 8.
The central agency had conducted searches on January 8 at the political consultancy’s office in Kolkata’s Salt Lake area, the home of its head Pratik Jain and the office of a trader in the city’s Posta neighbourhood as part of an investigation into alleged money laundering.
The Indian Political Action Committee has managed the Trinamool Congress’ election campaigns, including in the 2021 Assembly elections.
Banerjee had arrived at Jain’s home around noon while the search was underway and stayed for about 20 to 25 minutes. She then came out with a file and claimed that the central agency’s officials were “taking away” party documents ahead of the Assembly polls.
The elections in West Bengal will be held in two phases on April 23 and April 29. The results will be announced on May 4.
After the raids, the Trinamool Congress and I-PAC had moved the Calcutta High Court, challenging the legality of the searches. The central agency also approached the High Court, alleging “illegal interference” in its work.
The Enforcement Directorate’s petition in the Supreme Court was filed under Article 32 of the Constitution, which grants individuals the right to move the top court for enforcement of their fundamental rights.
At the hearing on Wednesday, advocates Shyam Divan, appearing for the state government, and Kapil Sibal, representing Banerjee, told the bench that the Enforcement Directorate had no power to file a writ petition under Article 32.
Divan argued that the central agency is not a juristic entity and has no fundamental rights, the Hindustan Times reported. Allowing such petitions would open the door to inter-departmental or disputes between the Centre and the states outside the constitutional framework envisaged under Article 131, he added.
Article 131 of the Constitution grants the Supreme Court exclusive jurisdiction over legal disputes between the Centre and states, or among states.
The bench, however, asked: “You may argue that this petition is not maintainable either under Article 32 or under Article 226 before the High Courts. But who will then decide if someday, some other chief minister in the future may barge into some other office? It is not a very happy situation.”
Article 226 empowers High Courts to issue writs to any person or the government.
The Supreme Court also noted the need to avoid a legal vacuum. “In our constitutional set-up, there cannot be a vacuum or a void preventing that a matter cannot be decided or resolved,” the Hindustan Times quoted the bench as saying.
During the hearing, Sibal said that it is not a fundamental right to investigate. The advocate added that the Enforcement Directorate cannot invoke Article 32 in the absence of a violation of fundamental rights.
However, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the central agency, argued that the matter goes beyond technical questions of maintainability. It concerns whether a central agency can be prevented from performing its statutory duties by a constitutional functionary, he added.
If the functioning of an agency is obstructed by the head of a state, the court cannot be rendered powerless to examine the legality of such conduct, Mehta said.
The bench indicated that the question of maintainability and the merits may be considered together, the Hindustan Times reported.
It further rejected the state government’s request to decide maintainability as a preliminary issue. “You cannot dictate what the court should do,” the newspaper quoted the bench as telling the counsel for the state government.
The matter was listed for further hearing next week.
Previous hearings
In February, the Enforcement Directorate told the Supreme Court that it was difficult to determine whether the material taken by Banerjee when she allegedly obstructed its searches at I-PAC’s premises only belonged to the Trinamool Congress.
The central agency made the remarks in a rejoinder affidavit filed in its petition in the Supreme Court.
During a hearing on February 18, the Enforcement Directorate also told the Supreme Court that it was being “terrorised”, after the West Bengal government argued that the central agency had been “weaponised”.
On January 15, the bench stayed the first information reports registered by the West Bengal Police against Enforcement Directorate officials in connection with the searches.
Issuing notice to Banerjee and the West Bengal Police officers on the petition filed by the central agency, the Supreme Court also said that the alleged interference of the state government in the searches was a “serious issue” that needed to be examined.
The Enforcement Directorate has sought a probe by the Central Bureau of Investigation against Banerjee and the state police officers for carrying away electronic devices and material considered as evidence in the matter.
Just 0.2% of readers pay for news. The others don’t care if it dies. You can help make a difference. Support independent journalism – join Scroll now.
We’re not driven by clicks or corporate interests – just honest, independent reporting. Keep us going. Support Scroll today!