The Supreme Court of India criticised Mamata Banerjee for allegedly interfering in an Enforcement Directorate probe, calling it a threat to democracy. The Court said a Chief Minister cannot disrupt investigations and warned against actions that put the democratic system at risk.
The Supreme Court of India on Wednesday strongly criticised Mamata Banerjee for allegedly interfering in search operations conducted by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) earlier this year at the Kolkata office of political consultancy firm Indian Political Action Committee.
A Bench of Justices PK Mishra and NV Anjaria made sharp observations, stating that a Chief Minister cannot act in a way that harms democratic processes. The Court remarked,
“This is not a dispute between the State and the Union. A Chief Minister of any State cannot walk in the midst of an investigation, put the democracy in peril, and then say…don’t convert this into a dispute between the State and the Union. This is per se an act committed by an individual who happens to be the Chief Minister keeping the whole democracy in jeopardy,”
clearly indicating that such conduct goes beyond a simple federal dispute.
The Bench further expressed surprise at the situation, noting that even renowned constitutional experts would not have imagined such an incident. It observed,
“You have taken us through Seervai, Ambedkar, but none of them would have conceived this situation in this country that one day a sitting Chief Minister will walk into the office…”
The Court was hearing petitions filed by the ED and its officers under Article 32 of the Indian Constitution, seeking a probe by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) against Banerjee and other officials. During the hearing, Senior Advocate Meneka Guruswamy, appearing for a West Bengal police officer, questioned whether such petitions were even maintainable.
She argued,
“I am on maintainability. When and if we come to the facts, then certainly we will convince your lordships. When we come to the facts ,your lordships will see there is no situation as described by the other side. There was no criminal conduct, there was no intimidation, there was no infraction,”
asserting that the allegations lacked merit.
However, the Court was not convinced and rejected the argument that the issue required referral to a larger bench. It clarified,
“In every question, there will be some question of law. That doesn’t mean every 32 petition is referred to a 5-judge bench,”
emphasising that not every constitutional issue needs such escalation.
Guruswamy countered by stating,
“Your lordships have always reined them in,”
referring to the Court’s past approach in limiting misuse of Article 32.
The Bench then questioned the existence of any major legal issue requiring a larger bench, stating,
“What is that substantial question of law that it needs to be referred to a 5-judge bench? This is not an appeal. These are Article 32 petitions,”
reinforcing its stance that the matter could be handled by the current bench.
During the proceedings, the Court also highlighted the ground realities in West Bengal, calling the case extraordinary. It said,
“Before the other bench where the FIR is under question, we have seen the situation that several judicial officers had been kept hostage. And you want the petitioner should have gone to a magistrate under Section 200? We cannot shut our eyes to the reality of what’s happening. We cannot lose sight of the practical situation which is present in the State. Don’t compel us to make observations. This is not a litigation between Ram vs Shyam. This is an extraordinary situation where the contours are totally different. Court has to take decision keeping in view socio-political realities. It is an ever evolving process,”
indicating the seriousness of the matter.
This observation came in response to Senior Advocate Sidharth Luthra’s argument that the ED could have approached a magistrate instead of filing petitions directly before the Supreme Court.
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.
ALSO READ: Mamata Banerjee Demands Justice for Pahalgam Terror Attack Victims, Slams Centre
Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, appearing for former DGP Rajeev Kumar, argued against the ED’s petition, stating,
“You cannot do indirectly what you can’t do directly. The ED officer’s petition is nothing. He has no existence, no identity, except as a person discharging his duties under the statute. He is only acting as a person discharging his statutory duties,”
questioning the legal standing of the officers.
The Court responded by asking,
“Does the directly indirectly principle applies to administrative law or does it apply to a petition for breach of fundamental rights?”
Singhvi replied,
“Arbitrariness and inequality arise neither for the department nor for the officer,”
maintaining that no fundamental rights violation had occurred.
He further argued,
“ED officer can have a Article 21 right as a human being but while acting as an officer cannot claim a separate right,”
stressing that officials cannot claim independent constitutional rights while performing official duties.
Singhvi also criticised the ED’s reliance on the doctrine of parens patriae, stating, “It will apply only if the affected party comes. ED itself is a parens patriae. Parens patriae is the last refuge for the ED. They themselves are the big boss,” arguing that the doctrine was wrongly invoked.
Guruswamy also referred to constitutional history and debates, stating,
“You have Article 32 so that citizens can enforce fundamental rights. That is the intended prescription of the drafters of the Indian Constitution. If your lordships find that ED officers can move Article 32 petitions, then your lordships are actually entertaining a situation which was not intended by the framers of the Constitution,”
warning against expanding the scope of Article 32.
She added,
“There is nothing in Part III which is intended to enable inter-departmental warfare or for the State to invoke it as a victim. The schematic arrangement of the text of the constitution is that these are rights against the State. The text is very clear,”
highlighting that fundamental rights are meant to protect citizens from the State, not enable disputes between government bodies.
Guruswamy further argued,
“Questions relating to Article 32 qualify as substantial questions of law and hence trigger article 145(3) mandating reference to a larger bench,”
urging the Court to refer the matter to a Constitution Bench.
Senior Advocate Sidharth Luthra also argued that the ED lacks independent legal identity, stating,
“No separate identity. Powers are circumscribed by PMLA and FEMA. It is a department of the government. Only natural citizens can invoke Article 32. I must tell your lordship, there is an Article 131 suit which is pending. The CBI’s very existence is in challenge and it’s operating in terms of a stay granted by your lordships 12-13 years ago,”
reinforcing the argument on maintainability.
The matter remains ongoing, with the Supreme Court set to continue hearing arguments on Thursday.
Click Here to Read More Reports on Mamata Banerjee
