NEW DELHI: Supreme Court on Tuesday asked the West Bengal govt how a central agency can approach a state authority headed by the CM when its complaint is against the CM herself. The court put the question to CM Mamata Banerjee’s counsel Kapil Sibal when he argued that Enforcement Directorate cannot petition SC over alleged violation of its fundamental rights and should instead resort to statutory remedies, like lodging FIR under BNS.Sibal told a bench of Justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and N V Anjaria that the allegation levelled by ED amounts to violation of statutory rights for which a police complaint could be filed, and violation of statutory rights is not a violation of fundamental rights to justify a writ petition. Watch Pre-Poll Shock In Bengal As ED Raids I-PAC Office, CM Mamata Calls It Political Targeting By Centre “If the CM barges into an ED investigation, your idea of remedy for ED is to go to the state govt which is headed by the CM and inform them about it and seek remedy,” the bench asked Sibal while hearing petitions filed by ED and its officers against Bengal govt, CM, Kolkata Police commissioner and other state officials for not allowing it to discharge duties while carrying out raids in Kolkata in Jan, including at political consultancy firm I-PAC’s office, in connection with a money laundering probe linked to the coal ‘scam’ case.Israel Iran WarUS-Israel-Iran War News Live Updates: Amazon Web Services ‘disrupted’ following drone attack in Bahrain; Saudi, UAE mull joining Iran war’They are talking sense’: Trump says Iran ‘agreed to not have nuclear weapon’The senior advocate, however, said the bench was wrongly assuming that the CM has committed an offence when the matter was still to be investigated. He said govt officials acting under the statutory provision cannot invoke fundamental rights in the event of obstruction in discharge of duties and there are statutory remedies for it. He said ED and its officials filed writ petitions without alleging which specific fundamental rights of theirs was breached.”If Enforcement Directorate is investigating (a case) under PMLA (Prevention of Money Laundering Act) and some other offence has come to the notice of its officers then the agency concerned, in this case state govt, should be informed as per section 66 of PMLA,” Sibal added.The bench, however, said the alleged second charge – not allowing Enforcement Directorate to conduct raid – was separate from the PMLA case as the offence was committed against ED officials.”The person who filed the writ petition has not claimed any fundamental right. Not only that, assuming he has a fundamental right, then the petition must state which fundamental right has been violated… There is a statutory remedy for it and that statutory remedy has to be followed. If an offence is committed within the jurisdiction of a particular police station in a particular state then the investigation has to be done by the state,” Sibal argued.Senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, for Bengal DGP, told SC that question of maintainability of the petition should be adjudicated by a larger bench as important questions of law are involved.End of ArticleFollow Us On Social MediaVideosIndia Built A Naval Network But Missed The Red Sea’s Key ChokepointLPG Ships Pine Gas And Jag Vasant Safely Cross Hormuz, Crew Hails Indian NavyIran Threats Undermine 10 Million Indian Lives, Israel’s ‘Great Plans With India’: Envoy AzarVessels ‘Going Dark’ In EEZ: Navy Chief Tripathi On ‘Emerging Flash Points’ In Indo-PacificAre Trump’s Iran Announcements Driven By Market Manipulation?; Trump Calls Modi To Discuss Iran WarIAF’s Biggest Aircraft Deal Progress To Replace Aging Fleet , C-130J, C-390 And A400M In RaceUS President Trump Dials PM Modi Amid West Asia Conflict, Discusses Strait Of HormuzIndia’s Rafale Marine Deal May Move Faster Than Planned With Trainer Arrival: Reports’India Indispensable To Asia’: Donald Trump’s War Envoy Colby Signals US Shift Amid West Asia CrisisGovt Calls All-Party Meeting To Discuss West Asia Conflict Amid Opposition Uproar123PhotostoriesInside the love lives of ‘The Brady Bunch’ cast: From on-screen family to real-life romancesExpert-approved 10 food combinations offering 12-30 g protein per servingFrom Saif Ali Khan-Amrita Singh to Bhagyashree-Himalaya Dasani: 5 famous Indian celebrities who eloped and got marriedExclusive – ‘The 50’ Winner Shiv Thakare opens up about his journey, Prince sacrificing his Ticket To Finale for him and his team distracting Faisu during finale taskStop Frying: Chef Sanjeev Kapoor shares 3 ways to prepare sweet potato in an air fryer6 kg vs 10 kg washing machine: How many clothes can your machine handle at a timeWhy women need to think about calcium much earlier than they usually doChennai airport phase-2 international terminal to open by December, set to handle 35 million passengers annually10 foods that were once illegal around the world and why they were bannedDivyanka Tripathi-Vivek Dahiya to become parents after 10 years of marriage: From meeting when she was heartbroken to becoming life partners–Their love story123Hot PicksTrain ticket refund ruleFortnite layoffsSonia GandhiGold rate todayIncome Tax CalculatorPublic holidays March 2026Bank Holidays MarchTop Trending82nd Airborne DivisionFortnite layoffsRCB soldSonia GandhiIRCTC ticket bookingFrances TiafoeHarish RanaTrump Modi callToronto airport heistBihar Board Science Topper
NEW DELHI: Supreme Court on Tuesday asked the West Bengal govt how a central agency can approach a state authority headed by the CM when its complaint is against the CM herself. The court put the question to CM Mamata Banerjee’s counsel Kapil Sibal when he argued that Enforcement Directorate cannot petition SC over alleged violation of its fundamental rights and should instead resort to statutory remedies, like lodging FIR under BNS.Sibal told a bench of Justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and N V Anjaria that the allegation levelled by ED amounts to violation of statutory rights for which a police complaint could be filed, and violation of statutory rights is not a violation of fundamental rights to justify a writ petition.
“If the CM barges into an ED investigation, your idea of remedy for ED is to go to the state govt which is headed by the CM and inform them about it and seek remedy,” the bench asked Sibal while hearing petitions filed by ED and its officers against Bengal govt, CM, Kolkata Police commissioner and other state officials for not allowing it to discharge duties while carrying out raids in Kolkata in Jan, including at political consultancy firm I-PAC’s office, in connection with a money laundering probe linked to the coal ‘scam’ case.The senior advocate, however, said the bench was wrongly assuming that the CM has committed an offence when the matter was still to be investigated. He said govt officials acting under the statutory provision cannot invoke fundamental rights in the event of obstruction in discharge of duties and there are statutory remedies for it. He said ED and its officials filed writ petitions without alleging which specific fundamental rights of theirs was breached.“If Enforcement Directorate is investigating (a case) under PMLA (Prevention of Money Laundering Act) and some other offence has come to the notice of its officers then the agency concerned, in this case state govt, should be informed as per section 66 of PMLA,” Sibal added.The bench, however, said the alleged second charge – not allowing Enforcement Directorate to conduct raid – was separate from the PMLA case as the offence was committed against ED officials.“The person who filed the writ petition has not claimed any fundamental right. Not only that, assuming he has a fundamental right, then the petition must state which fundamental right has been violated… There is a statutory remedy for it and that statutory remedy has to be followed. If an offence is committed within the jurisdiction of a particular police station in a particular state then the investigation has to be done by the state,” Sibal argued.Senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, for Bengal DGP, told SC that question of maintainability of the petition should be adjudicated by a larger bench as important questions of law are involved.
