The West Bengal government told the Supreme Court that admitting the Enforcement Directorate’s petition on the I-PAC raid in Kolkata could set a “dangerous precedent.” They urged the court to reject the plea to safeguard democratic processes.
The West Bengal government informed the Supreme Court that admitting the Enforcement Directorate’s (ED) petition regarding the raid on the political consultancy firm, I-PAC, in Kolkata would establish a “dangerous precedent.”
The government argues that the petition is not maintainable both factually and legally under Article 32 of the Constitution and should be dismissed immediately with exemplary costs.
The ED has approached the apex court, requesting a Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) probe against West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee and senior police officials for allegedly interfering in a money laundering investigation and illegally staying search operations at I-PAC.
The petition, filed under Article 32, includes the state government, Chief Minister Banerjee, and others as parties.
Previously, During a hearing on January 15, the Supreme Court remarked that “it is a very serious matter,” acknowledging that significant questions have been raised that, if left unresolved, could exacerbate the situation and lead to lawlessness in various states.
Asking the respondents to submit a counter affidavit within two weeks. The matter is expected to be heard again on February 3, the court stated,
“Considering that the different outfits are governing at different places. True, it is that any central agency has no power to interfere with the election work of any party. But, at the same time, if the central agencies are acting bonafide to investigate any serious offence…,”
In a counter affidavit filed on January 30, the West Bengal government claimed that admitting the writ petition would create a dangerous precedent and contradict fundamental constitutional principles and established legal procedures, which must not be undermined by any authority.
The affidavit stated,
“It cannot be subverted even under Article 142 of the Constitution of India. This is being sought to be done through the said writ petition. Such an attempt should be nipped in the bud by this court.”
The government emphasized that the writ petition is neither factually nor legally maintainable under Article 32 and should be dismissed summarily with exemplary costs. The affidavit pointed out that the petition fails to demonstrate any infringement of fundamental rights by the petitioners, making it ineligible for Supreme Court jurisdiction.
Furthermore, the affidavit contended that the ED’s petition involves disputed questions of fact, which the court typically does not address when fundamental rights infringement is not at stake.
The state also contended that the ED lacks the fundamental rights necessary to file a writ petition with the apex court, questioning the legitimacy of parallel proceedings before both the high court and the Supreme Court.
Suggesting the state be removed from the list of parties involved in the writ petition, the affidavit stated,
“The said writ petition does not contain any specific or cogent averment establishing or even alleging the involvement of the answering respondent in the matters complained of. In the absence of any such specific pleadings, the allegations/contentions sought to be raised against the answering respondent are vague, baseless, and bad in law,”
The affidavit further asserted that the ED’s writ petition represents a blatant misuse of Article 32, where its defined constitutional jurisdiction is improperly expanded.
It concluded,
“A state alleging violation of fundamental right in these facts is irrational and has no basis in fact or law,”
ED officials had conducted searches at the I-PAC office in Kolkata on January 8, related to the coal scam money laundering investigation.