File photo New Delhi: The Supreme Court has described as “very unusual” and “not a very happy situation” the allegations that Mamata Banerjee entered the premises of political consultancy firm Indian Political Action Committee while ED was conducting a probe, and obstructed it from carrying out duties on Jan 8. The court said a remedy must be found to prevent such clashes in future. A bench of Justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and N V Anjaria stressed SC had to intervene to decide on what was to be done in such a situation, while expressing apprehension such incidents can happen in other states also. “Because in this case, according to them, the CM barged into the office…if Article 226 and Article 32 (regarding violation of fundamental rights, see inset) are also not maintainable, then who will decide? It is not a very happy situation. Israel Iran WarUS-Israel-Iran War News Live Updates: US pounds Iranian missile sites near key Strait of Hormuz; Iran rains down cluster bombs on Tel AvivIran confirms death of national security chief Ali Larijani, president Pezeshkian offers condolencesLarijani Killing Escalates Conflict: Israel admits strike on Iran chief; Hormuz oil fears growIt is unusual and it did not happen earlier. Someday some other CM may enter into some other office…,” the bench said. The Supreme Court bench said there cannot be a vacuum, and there has to be some remedy for such a situation.The hearing started with a heated exchange of words between the bench and the state govt. A batch of lawyers appearing for the state, the CM and state officials made a concerted effort to get adjournment on the ground that ED’s rejoinder affidavit mentioned new facts which needed to be responded to. But the bench rejected the plea after solicitor general Tushar Mehta said it was a tactic to delay the hearing as the rejoinder was filed four weeks ago.Senior advocates Shyam Divan, Kapil Sibal, Siddharth Luthra and Menaka Guruswamy told the bench that it was not a normal rejoinder as it had several new averments that went beyond the scope of the petition.The bench, however, told them that they cannot dictate how the court should proceed. Divan responded that they were only requesting. When it was pointed out that ED had also sought adjournment, the bench said it is not battle for adjournment, and asked Divan to argue the case. The hearing would resume on March 24.End of ArticleFollow Us On Social MediaVideos’Pak Missiles Could Hit US’: Intel Chief Tulsi Gabbard Flags Nuclear Threat, India Left Off ListIran’s National Security Chief Ali Larijani Killed, Foreign Minister Says ‘Won’t Destabilise Tehran’Russia Confirms Jaishankar-Lavrov Phone Call On BRICS Differences Amid Iran War, Middle East Crisis’Just A Pause, I Shall Be Back’: Priyanka Chaturvedi’s Viral Farewell Speech In Rajya Sabha’Hormuz Remains Our Foremost Priority’: PM Modi Speaks To Kuwait’s Crown Prince Amid West Asia WarRussian Oil Tanker Bound for China Makes U-Turn to India as Delhi Steps Up Imports Amid Iran War’Esteemed, Kind People’: Iran Thanks India As It Receives First Medical Aid Shipment From New DelhiIndia Secures Oil Supply As Jag Laadki Ship Survives War Threat At Hormuz, Reaches Gujarat SafelyIndia On Target? Taj Mahal In Controversial US Deportation Ad Sparks Debate Over Migrant Exit Policy’Married Modi-ji’: PM Modi Laughs As Mallikarjun Kharge Cracks Joke On Deve Gowda In Rajya Sabha123PhotostoriesGudi Padwa 2026: Why do Marathi people eat Neem Leaves on the first day of the Hindu New YearTamil Nadu Elections 2026: The main faces to watch out for in the high-stakes contestYour blood test may look normal, but these hidden markers can reveal early metabolic risk (and what you can do about it)How to overcome dating burnoutRelationship expert reveals the biggest green flag in a healthy relationshipChaitra Navratri 2026: Traditional bhog offered to 9 avatars of Goddess Durga during the 9-day festivalNot sure what to do with old pillows? Here are smart ways to reuse them5 superbikes that offer the ultimate riding experienceHow to dry clean clothes at home: A step-by-step guideUgadi 2026: 8 traditional dishes prepared on the day of festival123Hot PicksChina oil tankersMPsfarewellIran war newsGold rate todayIncome Tax CalculatorPublic holidays March 2026Bank Holidays MarchTop TrendingFortnite chapter 7Jessica PegulaGreen Card HoldersPeter ThielQatar missile fireNSA Doval US envoy talksDeve GowdaRajya Sabha MP farewellChina oil tankersCM Devendra Fadnavis
New Delhi: The Supreme Court has described as “very unusual” and “not a very happy situation” the allegations that Mamata Banerjee entered the premises of political consultancy firm Indian Political Action Committee while ED was conducting a probe, and obstructed it from carrying out duties on Jan 8. The court said a remedy must be found to prevent such clashes in future. A bench of Justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and N V Anjaria stressed SC had to intervene to decide on what was to be done in such a situation, while expressing apprehension such incidents can happen in other states also. “Because in this case, according to them, the CM barged into the office…if Article 226 and Article 32 (regarding violation of fundamental rights, see inset) are also not maintainable, then who will decide? It is not a very happy situation. It is unusual and it did not happen earlier. Someday some other CM may enter into some other office…,” the bench said. The Supreme Court bench said there cannot be a vacuum, and there has to be some remedy for such a situation.The hearing started with a heated exchange of words between the bench and the state govt. A batch of lawyers appearing for the state, the CM and state officials made a concerted effort to get adjournment on the ground that ED’s rejoinder affidavit mentioned new facts which needed to be responded to. But the bench rejected the plea after solicitor general Tushar Mehta said it was a tactic to delay the hearing as the rejoinder was filed four weeks ago.Senior advocates Shyam Divan, Kapil Sibal, Siddharth Luthra and Menaka Guruswamy told the bench that it was not a normal rejoinder as it had several new averments that went beyond the scope of the petition.The bench, however, told them that they cannot dictate how the court should proceed. Divan responded that they were only requesting. When it was pointed out that ED had also sought adjournment, the bench said it is not battle for adjournment, and asked Divan to argue the case. The hearing would resume on March 24.
