Today, On 18th March, The State of West Bengal opposed the ED’s Article 32 plea, arguing the agency lacks the legal status to claim fundamental rights against a State. Senior Advocate Shyam Divan said the “ED was merely a governmental department without juristic personality,” calling such writs “dangerous to the federal structure.”
The Supreme Court of India heard the Enforcement Directorate’s petition against the West Bengal government led by Mamata Banerjee, which accuses the state administration of obstructing ED search operations at the offices of political consultancy firm I-PAC
The matter represents a major escalation in the ongoing conflict between central investigative agencies and the TMC-led West Bengal administration as the state prepares for local assembly elections.
A bench of Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice NV Anjaria heard the matter.
During the hearing, Senior Advocate Shyam Divan, appearing for the State, submitted that a rejoinder had been filed by the petitioner introducing fresh assertions.
At the start of the hearing, lawyers representing the West Bengal government asked for more time to file their reply to the ED’s rejoinder affidavit, contending that it contained extensive new allegations beyond the original scope.
He sought permission from the Court to place a response on record to address those new points, stressing that the pleadings should be completed before the matter proceeds further.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta opposed the adjournment, insisting any delay should be properly justified.
Opposing this request, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta pointed out that the rejoinder had already been filed nearly two weeks ago. He questioned the need for delay and remarked that there must be a reasonable basis if proceedings are to be postponed.
The State of West Bengal, challenged the admissibility of the writ petition the Enforcement Directorate (ED) brought to the Supreme Court under Article 32, arguing that the agency does not possess the legal personality necessary to invoke the Court’s fundamental-rights jurisdiction against a State.
Senior Advocate Shyam Divan, representing the State, argued that the “ED was merely a governmental department without juristic personality and warned that permitting a Central Government Department to file a writ petition against a State Government would be ‘dangerous to the federal structure.'”
Opening its submissions, Divan contended that the ED is only a department of the Central Government and lacks the juridical or natural personality required to file a writ under Article 32.
He argued that Article 32’s core purpose is the enforcement of fundamental rights, which only persons—natural or juristic can assert. Since the ED possesses neither status, it cannot claim a violation of fundamental rights
Divan told the Bench,
“ED is not a juristic entity… it is nothing beyond just a department of the Government. It does not have by itself any personality,”
He added, “that if there is no enforceable fundamental right, the Article 32 petition is not maintainable.”
Divan argued that neither the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) nor any other governing law gives the Enforcement Directorate a “right to sue”.
He compared this to statutory bodies like SEBI, which have been clearly granted such powers. At this point, Justice Mishra observed that SEBI functions as a regulatory authority and not as an investigating agency.
Divan then pointed out that several institutions including the NHAI, the UIDAI, the TRAI and the IRDAI — are expressly established as body corporates with the legal capacity to sue and be sued. He stressed that Parliament must specifically grant this authority, and “that is absent in the case of the ED”.
Discussing the evolution of the agency, Divan highlighted that the ED began as a unit within the Department of Economic Affairs and still operates as a branch of the Central Government.
He submitted,
“It was a department within a department, and it remains so,”
He further noted that investigative bodies like the CBI, the Narcotics Control Bureau, the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence and the Serious Fraud Investigation Office also do not enjoy statutory status as body corporates with an independent right to sue.
He added that State-level agencies such as the CID, Vigilance Commissions and Anti-Corruption Bureaus likewise lack such powers.
Responding to this line of argument, Justice Mishra remarked that there could be unusual situations where a Chief Minister may attempt to block the work of a Central agency.
Referring to the present case, he said,
“Because in this case, according to them, the Chief Minister barged into some government office controlled by the Central Government.. if 226 is also not maintainable 32 is also not maintainable, then who will decide? Someday some other Chief Minister may enter into some other office…”
Highlighting the gravity of the allegations, he stated that the incident involving the Chief Minister entering premises during a central agency’s investigation is itself serious, and yet the matter is being prolonged.
Senior Advocate Shyam Divan reiterated his concern, stating that the rejoinder goes beyond the scope of the original petition and therefore requires a proper response.
Representing the Bengal government, Senior Advocate Menaka Guruswamy also submitted that fresh assertions had been introduced in the rejoinder.
However, the Supreme Court noted that the rejoinder had already been filed about ten days ago and indicated that the hearing would continue without waiting further.
The court noted that the rejoinder had been submitted about 10 days earlier and said the hearing would go ahead.
The bench emphasized that it is not for anyone to tell the judiciary when a case must be taken up.
When Shyam Divan said they felt “handicapped” because no response had been filed, the court replied that the proceedings were not about winning an adjournment.
The Supreme Court told the counsel for the Bengal government in the I-PAC raid matter that they “cannot dictate” to the judiciary the timing of a court hearing.
After Divan concluded, Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal briefly presented arguments for Mamata Banerjee.
He contended that the Enforcement Directorate cannot move a writ petition asking for directions to the CBI to register an FIR regarding the alleged obstruction.
Justice Mishra then observed that, based on the petition, the ED officers had allegedly faced threats. Sibal responded,
“Assuming they have been threatened, what is the fundamental right here? Let’s see section 221 of the BNS obstructing a public servant who is discharging public duties. That is the answer.”
He further argued,
“ED cannot ask the CBI to investigate. Unless there is a predicate offence ED cannot come into the picture, cannot file a writ petition for the fundamental right to have the CBI lodge an FIR.”
Sibal also supported Divan’s request for referring the matter to a larger bench, noting that another bench is currently examining the same question in petitions filed by the States of Kerala and Tamil Nadu.
This situation arises after the ED conducted searches at various locations related to I-PAC and Pratik Jain in Kolkata on January 8.
The ED has asserted that Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee allegedly intruded during the raid, taking away significant evidence, including documents and electronic devices. Banerjee, however, has firmly rejected these charges and accused the central agency of overstepping its bounds.
Earlier, On January 9, the ED additionally approached the Calcutta High Court seeking a CBI investigation against Banerjee. The agency alleged that the Chief Minister, aided by the state police, disrupted search procedures and removed incriminating materials during the operation at Pratik Jain’s residence.
ED officials had conducted searches at the I-PAC office in Kolkata on January 8, related to the coal scam money laundering investigation.
Case Title: Directorate of Enforcement v. The State of West Bengal
Read Live Coverage
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
