Supreme Court Questions West Bengal Govt Over Alleged Interference in ED Probe

The Supreme Court of India on Monday raised pointed questions to the West Bengal government while hearing a plea filed by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) alleging interference in its search operations at political consultancy firm Indian Political Action Committee (I-PAC), which is associated with the Trinamool Congress.

During the proceedings, the bench questioned how the state would respond if a similar situation arose with roles reversed. “What if your government is in power at the Centre and another political party engages in similar actions at the state level?” the court observed, highlighting concerns over potential obstruction of central agency operations.

The ED has alleged that Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee and state officials interfered with its investigation and search operations conducted in early January as part of a money laundering probe linked to I-PAC.

A bench comprising Justices P.K. Mishra and N.V. Anjaria was hearing objections raised by the West Bengal government regarding the maintainability of the ED’s petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India. The court noted that, in addition to the ED as an institution, individual officers had also approached it, alleging violation of their fundamental rights.

“Please focus on the fundamental rights of the ED officers against whom the alleged offence has been committed. Otherwise, you may miss the core issue,” Justice Mishra remarked, cautioning the state’s counsel against overlooking petitions filed by individual officers.

Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for the state government, argued that the ED could not invoke Article 32 in this instance, as alternative statutory remedies were available. He contended that obstruction in the discharge of statutory duties does not amount to a violation of fundamental rights. “An ED officer’s right to investigate stems from statute, not from fundamental rights,” he submitted.

However, the bench appeared unconvinced, indicating that the alleged obstruction and its implications for individual officers warranted closer judicial scrutiny.

The court also declined requests to defer the hearing in light of the upcoming state Assembly elections. Emphasising judicial independence, Justice Mishra stated, “We do not wish to be influenced by electoral considerations, nor do we wish to overlook any alleged wrongdoing.”

The matter remains under consideration, with the court expected to further examine the scope and applicability of fundamental rights in cases involving alleged obstruction of investigative agencies.