New Delhi (Gurpreet Singh) — The Supreme Court of India on Wednesday voiced its concern over the alleged obstruction of the Enforcement Directorate’s (ED) investigative duties by West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee, describing the scenario as far from ideal. A bench comprising Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice NV Anjaria observed that the interruption of a central probe agency’s raid by a high-ranking state official could lead to unprecedented constitutional crises. The court emphasized that no entity should be left without a remedy when its legal functioning is interrupted, highlighting the potential danger of leaving a legal “vacuum” if such extraordinary situations are not addressed within the framework of the Constitution.
The case centers on an ED raid conducted on January 8 at the Kolkata office of political consultancy firm I-PAC and the residence of its chief, Pratik Jain, regarding a coal smuggling investigation. The federal agency alleged that Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee personally entered the premises and removed key evidence, effectively compromising the probe. In response, the West Bengal government challenged the maintainability of the ED’s petition under Article 32. Senior counsel Shyam Divan, appearing for the state, argued that the ED is not a “juristic entity” and lacks the legal personality required to invoke fundamental rights jurisdiction against a state. Divan further contended that allowing central agencies to use Article 32 would set a dangerous precedent for India’s federal structure, suggesting the issue requires a Constitution Bench review.
Representing the Chief Minister, senior counsel Kapil Sibal argued that the ED cannot file a writ petition seeking to direct the CBI to register an FIR into the alleged obstruction. Sibal maintained that even if officials were threatened or obstructed, the appropriate legal recourse lies under Section 221 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), which penalizes the obstruction of a public servant in the discharge of public duties. He questioned the necessity of invoking fundamental rights when statutory criminal laws already provide a mechanism for redress. However, the bench remained skeptical, questioning who would decide the matter if a Chief Minister entered a central office and neither Article 32 nor Article 226 remedies were available.
In its rejoinder, the ED asserted that it moved the top court as a guardian of the fundamental rights of the country’s citizens. While the Trinamool Congress has denied the allegations of obstruction and the state police have previously registered counter-FIRs against ED officers, the Supreme Court’s remarks underscore the deepening friction between federal investigative agencies and state executive leadership. The court refused to adjourn the hearing, signaling its intent to examine the constitutional remedies available in cases where the federal balance appears to be at stake.
