SupremeCourt – Apex Court to Review ED Allegations Against Bengal Government
SupremeCourt – The Supreme Court is scheduled to take up on Tuesday a petition filed by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) accusing the West Bengal government and Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee of obstructing official duties during recent search operations in Kolkata. The case has drawn attention for raising broader questions about the interaction between central investigative agencies and state authorities.
Hearing to Resume Before Two-Judge Bench
As per the cause list published by the Supreme Court, a Bench comprising Justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and Vipul M. Pancholi will continue hearing the matter. The petition relates to searches conducted at the Kolkata office of political consultancy firm Indian Political Action Committee (I-PAC) and the residence of its co-founder, Pratik Jain.
The ED has approached the apex court seeking judicial intervention, claiming that its officers faced resistance while carrying out lawful search operations. The agency has alleged that state authorities interfered during the process, preventing officials from completing their duties as mandated under law.
ED Seeks FIRs Against Senior State Officials
In its plea, the ED has requested the registration of first information reports against Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee, the West Bengal Director General of Police, and the Commissioner of Kolkata Police. According to the agency, these officials were involved in actions that amounted to obstruction during the coordinated raids.
The petition asserts that the searches were conducted following due procedure and under valid legal authority. It further claims that interference by local authorities undermines the independence and effectiveness of central investigations, particularly in cases involving financial and economic offences.
Supreme Court’s Earlier Interim Relief
During an earlier hearing, the Supreme Court had stayed FIRs lodged by the West Bengal Police against ED officials in connection with the same search operations. At that stage, the court observed that the matter raised significant concerns regarding alleged interference by state agencies in an ongoing central investigation.
The Bench noted that such allegations, if left unexamined, could have serious implications for the rule of law. It therefore considered it necessary to maintain the status quo until the issues were addressed in detail.
Notices Issued, Responses Awaited
The court had issued notices to the Chief Minister and senior police officials, granting them two weeks to submit their counter-affidavits. The matter was then posted for further hearing on February 3, allowing all parties an opportunity to place their versions on record.
This procedural step was aimed at ensuring a fair hearing while enabling the court to assess the competing claims based on documented submissions rather than oral assertions alone.
Directions on Evidence Preservation
In its interim order, the Supreme Court also directed that CCTV footage and other digital records from the searched premises, as well as nearby areas, be preserved. The court stressed the importance of safeguarding electronic evidence, noting that it could be crucial in determining whether the ED’s operations were unlawfully obstructed.
The Bench remarked that, at a preliminary level, the petition pointed to a serious issue concerning interference in investigations conducted by central agencies. It cautioned that unresolved disputes of this nature could potentially lead to administrative disorder in one or more states.
Strong Arguments From Both Sides
Representing the ED, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta described the situation as one where lawful authority was challenged through intimidation. He argued that the incident reflected a breakdown in institutional cooperation, using strong language to emphasize the gravity of the allegations.
On the other side, senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, appearing for the West Bengal government, questioned the maintainability of the ED’s plea. He argued that the agency had engaged in forum shopping and pointed out that similar issues were already under consideration before the Calcutta High Court. According to him, adequate legal remedies were available at the state level.
As the hearing resumes, the Supreme Court’s examination of these arguments is expected to provide clarity on the balance of powers between central agencies and state administrations, as well as the legal boundaries governing investigative actions.