. NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Wednesday came down hard on West Bengal CM Mamata Banerjee for interfering with Enforcement Directorate searches on Indian Political Action Committee (I-PAC), the political consultancy hired by the state government and Trinamool Congress, and said that her action had put democracy in peril.Justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and N V Anjaria rejected the efforts of the heavy-duty team of Banerjee’s lawyers to frame the issue as that of Centre-State. Watch ‘Democracy Cannot Be Jeopardised’: SC Slams Mamata Banerjee Over Alleged Interference In ED Raid “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 democracy in peril… 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,” the bench said.The tough remarks, on the eve of polling for Bengal Phase 1 polls, mark a setback for Banerjee, while giving the BJP, her principal opponent, ammunition.How can it be a Centre-state row if CM walks in in midst of probe: SCBanerjee, accompanied by the Bengal DGP, had on Jan 8 interrupted ED’s searches at the residence of Pratik Jain, I-PAC’s director, and had walked away with files which the ED claimed were crucial for its investigation into the political consultancy’s alleged involvement in money laundering.The ED moved SC alleging that Mamata Banerjee’s action violated its fundamental rights and sought relief under Article 32, which deals with protection from violation of fundamental rights. Banerjee, represented by a battery of lawyers — Kapil Sibal, AM Singhvi, Shyam Divan, Siddharth Luthra and Menaka Guruswamy — argued that remedies provided for under Article 32 are available only to individual citizens and that the ED should pursue its case under provisions of the BNS. They said it was for the Centre to move the court under Article 131, which deals with disputes between the Centre and state(s).However, the bench, which termed her conduct “extraordinary and unprecedented”, did not agree. “How can a situation, where a CM walks in in the midst of an investigation, be termed as a dispute between the state and the central govt to invoke Article 131,” asked Justices Mishra and Anjaria.The court said legal issues arising out of the present controversy were not contemplated and conceived by the Constitution makers, making it an unprecedented situation.Guruswamy, besides contending that Article 32 is available only to an individual and not to a govt department, argued that the case involved a substantial question of law and it should be adjudicated by a 5-judge constitution bench.The bench was hearing a plea filed by the ED and its officials seeking a CBI probe against the CM and others for preventing them from discharging their duty when they had raided the premises of I-PAC, which is the political consultant of Trinamool.End of ArticleFollow Us On Social MediaVideosWest Bengal Poll Violence: Blast In Murshidabad Injures Multiple During VotingVijay Writes To EC Seeking Poll Extension Amid 17.69% Early Turnout In Tamil NaduMassive Poll Day: West Bengal Begins Voting, Tamil Nadu Sees Triangular Showdown“Trail Of Terror Revealed”: India EXPOSES Pak Over Terror Links At Washington EventArmy Chief’s Hawaii Visit Highlights Deepening India-US Military Strategy In Indo-PacificIndia Denies Crypto Scam Claims After Ship Fired Upon in Strait of Hormuz TensionsFormer J&K DGP SP Vaid on Pahalgam Attack, Terrain and Security Challenges In Jammu And KashmirIndia Marks Pahalgam Anniversary With a Strong Message To Terror Outfits & Pak | WatchEC Issues Notice To Kharge Over “Terrorist” Remark On PM Modi After BJP Complaint‘Democracy Cannot Be Jeopardised’: SC Slams Mamata Banerjee Over Alleged Interference In ED Raid123Photostories5 things children remember about their parents long after they grow upWhy does homemade curd release transparent liquid on top? 4 tips to fix it and set perfect curd at home5 emerging Mumbai locations offering affordable sea-view apartments for homebuyersHow to get rid of cockroaches naturally: 10 Proven home remedies that work fastDelhi IRS officer’s daughter’s rape-murder: How accused exploited knowledge of family routine to strikeStomach pain or acidity? Signs your “GERD” could be something more serious, and what to do nextWorld Book Day 2026: 10 quotes by famous people on the joy of reading10 cute baby girl pet names that begin with letter A5 of the most beautiful fish in the world that don’t look realCoachella 2026: 5 bizarre influencer outfits that ruined the festival fashion123Hot PicksBengal Election 2026Rahul gandhi rallyBengal election dos and don’tsTamil Nadu pollsSIR ProtestTN election dos and don’tsBank Holidays AprilTop TrendingWest Bengal electionTamil Nadu electionCBSE 10th Second Board Exam ScheduleMalegaon Blast CaseMeerut Blue Drum Murder CaseBareilly Suicide NewsTCS Nashik CaseDelhi Murder NewsMiddle East ConflictIPL Orange Cap
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Wednesday came down hard on West Bengal CM Mamata Banerjee for interfering with Enforcement Directorate searches on Indian Political Action Committee (I-PAC), the political consultancy hired by the state government and Trinamool Congress, and said that her action had put democracy in peril.Justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and N V Anjaria rejected the efforts of the heavy-duty team of Banerjee’s lawyers to frame the issue as that of Centre-State.
“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 democracy in peril… 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,” the bench said.The tough remarks, on the eve of polling for Bengal Phase 1 polls, mark a setback for Banerjee, while giving the BJP, her principal opponent, ammunition.
How can it be a Centre-state row if CM walks in in midst of probe: SC
Banerjee, accompanied by the Bengal DGP, had on Jan 8 interrupted ED’s searches at the residence of Pratik Jain, I-PAC’s director, and had walked away with files which the ED claimed were crucial for its investigation into the political consultancy’s alleged involvement in money laundering.The ED moved SC alleging that Mamata Banerjee’s action violated its fundamental rights and sought relief under Article 32, which deals with protection from violation of fundamental rights.
Banerjee, represented by a battery of lawyers — Kapil Sibal, AM Singhvi, Shyam Divan, Siddharth Luthra and Menaka Guruswamy — argued that remedies provided for under Article 32 are available only to individual citizens and that the ED should pursue its case under provisions of the BNS. They said it was for the Centre to move the court under Article 131, which deals with disputes between the Centre and state(s).However, the bench, which termed her conduct “extraordinary and unprecedented”, did not agree. “How can a situation, where a CM walks in in the midst of an investigation, be termed as a dispute between the state and the central govt to invoke Article 131,” asked Justices Mishra and Anjaria.The court said legal issues arising out of the present controversy were not contemplated and conceived by the Constitution makers, making it an unprecedented situation.Guruswamy, besides contending that Article 32 is available only to an individual and not to a govt department, argued that the case involved a substantial question of law and it should be adjudicated by a 5-judge constitution bench.The bench was hearing a plea filed by the ED and its officials seeking a CBI probe against the CM and others for preventing them from discharging their duty when they had raided the premises of I-PAC, which is the political consultant of Trinamool.
