The Supreme Court of India questioned if the Enforcement Directorate was alleging a breakdown of constitutional machinery in West Bengal over the Kolkata I-PAC raid involving Mamata Banerjee. “We hope you are not arguing ‘breakdown of constitutional machinery’,” Justice N. V. Anjaria told SG Tushar Mehta during the hearing.
The Supreme Court asked whether the Enforcement Directorate (ED) effectively claiming a breakdown of constitutional machinery in West Bengal, pausing momentarily as the Central agency responded to Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee, senior State police officers, and bureaucrats accused of violating the rule of law by barging into an ongoing raid at the I-PAC premises in Kolkata and allegedly leaving with material said to be incriminating in a coal smuggling case.
A Division Bench headed by Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra, including Justice N.V. Anjaria, posed the question to Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the ED.
SG Mehta told the bench,
“The sitting Chief Minister has actively caused obstruction in investigation…Rule of Law ceases to operate when executive uses state machinery to obstruct investigation..,”
Justice N.V. Anjaria asked Solicitor General Tushar Mehta,
“We hope you are not arguing ‘breakdown of constitutional machinery’ in the context of the controversy you are raising,”
Under Article 356 of the Constitution, failure of constitutional machinery is one of the grounds on which the President’s rule may be imposed in a State.
The Bench’s query followed ED submissions describing a well-established pattern of violations attributed to the Chief Minister, State police, and the ruling Trinamool Congress, along with what the agency described as a long-standing “non-existent” commitment to the rule of law in West Bengal.
Mr. Mehta cited, among other things, the police siege of the CBI Joint Director’s residence in Kolkata and the arrest of CBI officials in 2019, and also referred to a mob of lawyers and party workers crowding into a Calcutta High Court courtroom on January 9, 2026.
He further said the Director General of Police acted as the PSO (personal security officer) of the Chief Minister.
Mr. Mehta then said there was nothing up the sleeve of the ED in the matter and argued that the “rule of law” is integral to Article 14 of the Constitution.
He said the ED officials against whom the State police have registered criminal cases for conducting what were described as lawful investigations have the fundamental right to equality before the law and equal protection of the laws.
The top law officer said,
“The ED cannot argue ‘breakdown of constitutional machinery’ [Article 356],”
He submitted that the rule of law argument was raised to establish the ED’s locus standi, in a representative capacity, to approach the Supreme Court under Article 32 writ jurisdiction to protect the fundamental rights of its officials, whose personal liberty and dignity as citizens he said were threatened by engineered or orchestrated police FIRs filed only for carrying out their duties.
The ED and its Deputy Director Robin Bansal have filed a writ petition seeking a CBI probe into the incident involving Ms. Banerjee and officials who accompanied her when they allegedly “intruded” into the raids.
ALSO READ: Mamata Banerjee Demands Justice for Pahalgam Terror Attack Victims, Slams Centre
Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for the West Bengal government, argued that the writ petition did not set out any breach of fundamental rights particularly those of Mr. Bansal and should therefore be dismissed as not maintainable.
He also contended that since the dispute was essentially between the Centre and the State, it was the Centre not the ED that ought to have moved the Supreme Court by filing an original suit under Article 131.
Asking whether officials who were allegedly obstructed while performing their duties could claim a breach of their civil liberties, Justice Anjaria remarked,
“Fundamental rights are person-centric,”
Justice Mishra then intervened to note that the ED was not limited or “confined” by what the State police did.
Additional Solicitor General S.V. Raju, appearing for Mr. Bansal, said,
“But I am being confined, my fundamental right was violated. Therefore, appropriate action has to be taken”.
He added that his client has a right to a fair and free investigation by an independent agency that is not subservient to State machinery.
Mr. Mehta responded that an officer does not cease to be a person merely because he or she is in uniform or acting in an official capacity, saying the officer’s role and the individual’s rights cannot be separated. He also argued that no Centre–State dispute arises here and that an Article 131 suit would be maintainable only if the dispute is truly federal in nature.
Mr. Mehta argued,
“This is a law and order issue. The president of the ruling party, who is also the highest executive of the State, along with officials who happen to draw their salaries from the Centre are on one side here… Besides, State governments, including the States of West Bengal and Tamil Nadu [in the Governor case], have repeatedly approached the Supreme Court under Article 32, and been entertained by this court,”
He further submitted that writ petitions by States should be discouraged, adding, Justice Mishra asked.
“Then should we dismiss this petition?”
Mr. Mehta replied in the negative, stating that ED officials themselves had approached the Supreme Court in their personal capacity in this case as well.
The ED argued that the State’s challenge to the maintainability of the writ petition was an argument of desperation.
The Central agency also objected to the State’s request to refer the petition to a Constitution Bench on the question of maintainability of a writ filed by a Central agency.
The case arises from an incident on January 8, when Chief Minister Banerjee reportedly entered the I-PAC office and the residence of its co-founder while ED officials were conducting searches linked to a money laundering investigation. She allegedly removed documents and electronic devices, claiming they contained information related to her political party.
The ED stated that the searches were part of a probe into a 2020 money laundering case involving businessman Anup Majee, who is accused of running a coal smuggling racket in West Bengal. According to the agency, coal was illegally extracted from Eastern Coalfields Limited (ECL) areas and sold to various factories, including entities linked to the Shakambhari Group.
Following the incident, the ED approached the Supreme Court alleging that Banerjee and State officials interfered with its investigation and removed crucial evidence. Earlier, on January 15, the Court had observed that failure to examine such issues could lead to lawlessness in the country and issued notices to Banerjee, former Director General of Police Rajeev Kumar, and others.
The State government, however, denied the allegations and argued that the ED’s own records showed no obstruction during the searches. It also contended that petitions under Article 32 are meant only for citizens whose fundamental rights are violated, not for government agencies.
Case Title: Directorate of Enforcement v. The State of West Bengal
Click Here to Read More Reports on Mamata Banerjee