Supreme Court of India on March 24 questioned the objections raised by the West Bengal government regarding the maintainability of a petition filed by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) under Article 32 of the Constitution.
A bench comprising Justice PK Mishra and Justice NV Anjaria observed that the issue was not limited to the agency as an institution, but also involved individual officers whose fundamental rights may have been affected.
The Court pointedly asked whether ED officers cease to be citizens merely because of their official roles, underlining that their rights cannot be ignored in the legal framework.
During the hearing, the bench cautioned the opposing counsel against reducing the issue to an institutional dispute. Justice Mishra remarked that individual ED officers have also approached the Court in their personal capacity, claiming to be victims of alleged obstruction.
The Court emphasised that any alleged offence impacting these officers must be examined from the perspective of their fundamental rights, indicating that the matter goes beyond routine procedural objections.
Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for the West Bengal authorities, argued that the ED’s plea under Article 32 was not maintainable. He contended that obstruction of a statutory duty does not amount to a violation of fundamental rights.
According to Sibal, ED officers derive their authority to investigate from statutory provisions, not from fundamental rights. Therefore, any obstruction should be addressed through existing legal remedies, such as filing a police complaint, rather than invoking the Supreme Court’s writ jurisdiction.
The Court also firmly rejected suggestions to defer the hearing due to the upcoming West Bengal Assembly elections. Senior Advocate Kalyan Bandopadhyay, appearing for Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee, had referred to past instances where cases were deferred in view of elections.
However, the bench made it clear that judicial proceedings would not be influenced by electoral considerations. “We don’t want to be party to election, we don’t want to be party to any crime also,” the Court observed, asserting its independence in adjudication.
The case stems from events on January 8, when ED officials were conducting search operations at the office of political consultancy firm I-PAC in connection with a money laundering investigation.
During the operation, Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee reportedly visited the premises and allegedly removed documents and electronic devices. Banerjee later stated that the materials pertained to her political party, the All India Trinamool Congress.
The ED, however, alleged that the intervention disrupted its investigation and led to the removal of crucial evidence.
The searches were part of a broader investigation into a 2020 money laundering case linked to alleged coal smuggling activities involving businessman Anup Majee. According to the ED, the syndicate engaged in illegal coal extraction from Eastern Coalfields Limited (ECL) areas and supplied it to industrial units in West Bengal.
Following the alleged interference, the ED approached the Supreme Court under Article 32, seeking a probe by the Central Bureau of Investigation and action against those accused of obstructing its operations.
Earlier, on January 15, the Supreme Court had observed that ignoring such allegations could lead to “lawlessness” and had issued notices to Mamata Banerjee, former Director General of Police Rajeev Kumar, and other officials.
In response, the West Bengal government maintained that the ED’s own records, including the panchnama, did not indicate any obstruction during the searches. It also reiterated that Article 32 petitions are meant for citizens alleging violation of fundamental rights, not for agencies seeking enforcement of statutory powers.
The ongoing legal battle has opened up a complex constitutional debate on the intersection of fundamental rights and statutory authority. As the Supreme Court continues to examine the matter, its eventual ruling could have far-reaching implications for law enforcement agencies, federal relations, and the interpretation of Article 32.
