Today, On 18th March, The Supreme Court of India rejected West Bengal’s adjournment plea in the Enforcement Directorate case linked to the Indian Political Action Committee raid. It told lawyers they ‘cannot dictate’ when case should be heard, saying matter would continue.
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.
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.
A bench of Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice NV Anjaria refused to postpone the proceedings and ordered the state to proceed with its arguments.
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.
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.
During the exchange, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta asserted,
“This is my petition; I will justify invoking Article 32.”
Responding to this, Senior Advocate Shyam Divan stated,
“Let pleadings be completed first; we will raise maintainability objections.”
The Court, however, made its position clear, observing,
“If maintainable, we will hear it fully no need to wait for counters on merits.”
Shyam Divan pressed further, saying,
“The rejoinder goes beyond merits; I haven’t had a chance to respond.”
In a firm response, the Court remarked,
“You cannot dictate proceedings; we will consider what is on record. This isn’t about adjournments.”
Divan then argued,
“The matter is sensitive and needs a detailed reply.”
To this, the Court responded sharply,
“It may be sensitive for you.”
At this point, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta added that such a situation is “highly unusual for us.”
The Court then asked the Solicitor General to proceed with his submissions.
Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal also intervened, stating,
“We are raising a preliminary objection.”
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.
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
