Supreme Court of India raps West Bengal over CM’s interference during ED raids: ‘Not a happy situation’
The Supreme Court of India on Wednesday pulled up the West Bengal government in the I-PAC case, calling Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee’s alleged interference during ED raids “not a happy situation”.
A bench of Justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and NV Anjaria questioned what remedy exists if a chief minister disrupts the functioning of a central agency. “If a CM barges into a government office and interferes with a central agency’s work, what is the remedy? What if it happens again?” the court asked, indicating it may frame standard operating procedures (SOPs) for such scenarios.
Appearing for the state, senior advocate Shyam Divan argued that the Constitution already provides remedies, suggesting the Centre should initiate appropriate proceedings instead of agencies invoking writ jurisdiction independently.
What is the I-PAC case?
The court was hearing a plea by the Enforcement Directorate, which alleged obstruction by Banerjee and state officials during raids on January 8 at the Kolkata office of political consultancy firm I-PAC and the residence of its chief Prateek Jain. The searches were linked to a money laundering probe in an alleged coal scam.
The raids saw dramatic scenes, with Banerjee visiting Jain’s residence and later the I-PAC office, leaving with documents and electronic devices while searches were underway. The ED termed the episode a “gross abuse of power”, while Banerjee maintained the कार्रवाई was politically motivated ahead of the state elections.
‘You can’t dictate to us’
During the hearing, the bench also refused to adjourn the matter after Bengal sought more time to respond to the ED’s filings. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta opposed the request, calling it a delay tactic. When Divan suggested the court could ignore the ED’s rejoinder, the bench pushed back firmly.
“Why should we ignore anything? You cannot dictate. We will consider everything on record,” Justice Mishra said.
The matter will now be taken up for further hearing next week.
Comments are closed.