File photo NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Tuesday questioned the West Bengal government over its objection to the maintainability of the Enforcement Directorate’s plea alleging obstruction by Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee during a January 8 raid at I-PAC, asking what remedy ED officers would have if their rights were allegedly violated.As per news agency PTI, a Bench of Justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and N V Anjaria said some ED officers had also moved the court in their individual capacity, raising the issue of whether they cease to be citizens merely because they serve in the agency.Court asks state to focus on ED officers’ rightsDuring the hearing, senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for Banerjee, argued that a petitioner invoking Article 32 must clearly show which fundamental right has been violated.Israel Iran WarUS-Israel-Iran War News Live Updates: Amazon Web Services ‘disrupted’ following drone attack in Bahrain; Saudi, UAE mull joining Iran warGulf Allies Edge Toward Conflict: Saudi grants US base access; UAE shuts Iranian assetsPossible US-Iran Talks In Islamabad: White House calls situation ‘sensitive’ and ‘fluid’; oil prices tumbleHe submitted that the ED officer who filed the writ petition had not specifically pleaded any violation of fundamental rights and said the ED itself was not even a “person” for the purpose of such a petition.At this stage, Justice Mishra told the state to look beyond the agency as an institution and focus on the officers who had also approached the court.“Please concentrate on the fundamental rights of the officers of the ED with whom the offence has been committed. Otherwise, you will miss the point. You can’t forget the second petition which is preferred by individual officers who are the victims of the offence. You will be in difficulty, I am telling you. Don’t just say ED, ED, ED,” Justice Mishra observed, as quoted by Bar and Bench.Bar and Bench similarly reported that the court asked whether ED officers cease to be citizens of India merely because they are officers of the agency.The Court further said “different political parties govern centre and states. If some chief minister of the other side does this in 2030 and 2031 and you come in power in central government and their chief minister does this, what will be your reaction?”Kapil Sibal says obstruction of statutory duty is not a fundamental rights issueSibal argued that obstruction in the performance of a statutory duty cannot automatically be treated as a violation of a fundamental right.He said, “If someone obstructs a police officer, he can’t file a petition under Article 32. He also can’t file a 226 petition. There will be a prosecution launched for the obstruction of violating his right to discharge his functions.”As quoted by Bar and Bench, Sibal also told the court, “Any obstruction in performance of a statutory duty is not in violation of a fundamental right. If someone obstructs a police officer, he can’t file a 32 petition. There is a statutory remedy. Otherwise every police officer will file a 32. We can’t interpret a law in the context of a particular situation and then open a Pandora’s box inconsistent with the basic features of criminal law.”He further argued that an ED officer has only a statutory right to investigate, not a “fundamental right” to do so. “He (ED officer) only has a right under a statute to investigate. And violation of that right is not a violation of fundamental right,” Bar and Bench quoted him as saying.Bench questions whether ED should seek remedy from CM-led stateThe Bench also raised a sharp question over the practical consequence of the state’s argument.“If the CM barges into an ED investigation and commits an offence, your idea of remedy for the ED is to go to the state government which is headed by the CM and inform them about it and seek remedy?” Justice Mishra asked.Sibal responded that the court was presuming the Chief Minister had committed an offence. “Your lordships are assuming that the chief minister has committed an offence,” he said, according to PTI.Justice Mishra clarified that the Bench was not making any finding and was only referring to the allegations in the plea.“We are not assuming anything. That is the allegation. Do not mistake us. Every allegation is based on some facts, if there are no facts, there is no need to be investigated. That is what they are praying for, for CBI to investigate,” the judge said.Sibal also argued that if ED officers came across another offence while investigating under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), they should inform the concerned agency — in this case the state government — under Section 66 of PMLA.Court rejects suggestion to defer hearing due to electionsThe Supreme Court also firmly pushed back against a suggestion that the case be postponed because of the upcoming West Bengal Assembly elections.According to Bar and Bench, senior advocate Kalyan Banerjee, appearing for Banerjee, referred to an earlier instance where a judge had declined to hear a matter due to elections.The Bench, however, made it clear it would not entertain such a request.“We don’t want to be party to election, we don’t want to be party to any crime also. We know the timing of the court. We know the timing of the decision,” Justice Mishra said, as reported by Bar and Bench.Kalyan Banerjee also argued that the state’s consent is required for a CBI investigation, though constitutional courts have the power in appropriate cases.Hearing remains inconclusive, next date on April 14The hearing remained inconclusive and will continue on April 14.The matter centres on the ED’s plea alleging interference and obstruction by the West Bengal government, including Mamata Banerjee, during its January 8 search at the I-PAC office and the premises of its director Pratik Jain in connection with an alleged coal-pilferage scam.The agency has sought a CBI probe and also challenged the FIRs lodged in West Bengal against its officers.Case stems from January 8 I-PAC raid in coal smuggling probeBanerjee allegedly entered the I-PAC office and the residence of its co-founder while ED officers were conducting searches in connection with a money laundering investigation and allegedly removed documents and electronic devices from the premises.She reportedly claimed the material related to her political party. I-PAC has been associated with the Trinamool Congress since the 2019 Lok Sabha elections.The ED has said the searches were linked to its probe into a 2020 money laundering case against businessman Anup Majee, accused of involvement in coal smuggling.The agency alleged that a coal smuggling syndicate led by Majee illegally excavated coal from Eastern Coalfields Ltd (ECL) leasehold areas in West Bengal and sold it to various factories and plants in the state, with a large part allegedly sold to the Shakambhari Group of companies.Earlier, SC had termed obstruction allegations ‘very serious’On January 15, the top court had described the allegations against the Chief Minister as “very serious” and agreed to examine whether a state’s law-enforcing agencies can interfere with a central agency’s investigation into a serious offence.It stayed the FIRs filed against ED officials who carried out the raid and directed the West Bengal Police to preserve the CCTV footage of the operation.The court had also issued notices to Mamata Banerjee, the West Bengal government, former DGP Rajeev Kumar and senior police officials on the ED’s petitions seeking a CBI probe.Tthe Bench also questioned where the ED would go if it could not move the Supreme Court under Article 32 or a High Court under Article 226, observing that “there cannot be a vacuum.”State says ED plea under Article 32 is not maintainableThe West Bengal government has consistently opposed the ED’s move under Article 32.The state argued the searches at I-PAC were not obstructed, and that the ED’s own panchnama showed this.It also contended that an Article 32 petition can be filed only by citizens alleging a violation of fundamental rights, and therefore the ED’s petition against a state government is not maintainable.The state warned allowing a central government department to file a writ petition against a state government could be dangerous to the federal structure.About the AuthorTOI News DeskThe TOI News Desk comprises a dedicated and tireless team of journalists who operate around the clock to deliver the most current and comprehensive news and updates to the readers of The Times of India worldwide. With an unwavering commitment to excellence in journalism, our team is at the forefront of gathering, verifying, and presenting breaking news, in-depth analysis, and insightful reports on a wide range of topics. The TOI News Desk is your trusted source for staying informed and connected to the ever-evolving global landscape, ensuring that our readers are equipped with the latest developments that matter most.”Read MoreEnd of ArticleFollow Us On Social MediaVideos’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 Uproar”Foreign Policy Is Compromised…” Rahul Gandhi Blasts PM Modi Over West Asia CrisisDelhi Budget: Rekha Gupta Govt Promises Free LPG Cylinders Twice A Year Amid Rising Energy CostsPM Narendra Modi Reveals How Much Oil India Has As West Asia War Disrupts Global Oil SuppliesPM Modi Urges Peace, De-escalation As India Engages Iran, Israel And US To Resolve Energy CrisisManish Tewari Questions Relevance of Budget 2026 Amid Rising West Asia TensionsSupreme Court Raps Forces Over Gender Bias, Orders Justice For Women Officers In Historic RulingGovt Tightens Grip On GLP-1 Weight Loss Drugs Amid Rising Concerns Over Unauthorised SalesIndia, US Step Up Defence Talks As Elbridge Colby Visit And Jaishankar-Rubio Call Focus On West Asia123PhotostoriesTesseract: The Geometry of Truth by The Times of India: Honouring the tapestry of art and imagination5 yoga asanas that are good for your heartTravelling in a War Zone: How to stay safe and 5 crucial things to keep in mindTesseract: The Geometry of Truth by The Times of India: Celebration of art, vision, and imaginationEmraan Hashmi birthday special: Looking into the actor’s best performances from ‘Gangster’ to ‘Hamari Adhuri Kahani’Ayodhya real estate boom 2026: 5 high-return investment zones you should knowVaibhav Suryavanshi Home: Vaibhav Suryavanshi’s modest home in Samastipur, Bihar tells the story of hard work, determination and family sacrificesTesseract: The Geometry of Truth by The Times of IndiaFamous war memorials around the world and the stories behind them8 satvik foods to eat during Navratri for energy and balance123Hot PicksTrump Iran DealMohammad Bagher GhalibafSan Francisco AirportGold rate todayIncome Tax CalculatorPublic holidays March 2026Bank Holidays MarchTop TrendingGolden state warriors vs dallas mavericks injury reportPatrick MahomesJoe MazzullaColombian Military Plane CrashBrittany MahomesWWE Raw News RoundupSilver Rate TodayRajasthan 8th Class ResultTrump Iran DealBihar Board Science Topper
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Tuesday questioned the West Bengal government over its objection to the maintainability of the Enforcement Directorate’s plea alleging obstruction by Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee during a January 8 raid at I-PAC, asking what remedy ED officers would have if their rights were allegedly violated.As per news agency PTI, a Bench of Justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and N V Anjaria said some ED officers had also moved the court in their individual capacity, raising the issue of whether they cease to be citizens merely because they serve in the agency.
Court asks state to focus on ED officers’ rights
During the hearing, senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for Banerjee, argued that a petitioner invoking Article 32 must clearly show which fundamental right has been violated.He submitted that the ED officer who filed the writ petition had not specifically pleaded any violation of fundamental rights and said the ED itself was not even a “person” for the purpose of such a petition.At this stage, Justice Mishra told the state to look beyond the agency as an institution and focus on the officers who had also approached the court.“Please concentrate on the fundamental rights of the officers of the ED with whom the offence has been committed. Otherwise, you will miss the point. You can’t forget the second petition which is preferred by individual officers who are the victims of the offence. You will be in difficulty, I am telling you. Don’t just say ED, ED, ED,” Justice Mishra observed, as quoted by Bar and Bench.Bar and Bench similarly reported that the court asked whether ED officers cease to be citizens of India merely because they are officers of the agency.The Court further said “different political parties govern centre and states. If some chief minister of the other side does this in 2030 and 2031 and you come in power in central government and their chief minister does this, what will be your reaction?”
Kapil Sibal says obstruction of statutory duty is not a fundamental rights issue
Sibal argued that obstruction in the performance of a statutory duty cannot automatically be treated as a violation of a fundamental right.He said, “If someone obstructs a police officer, he can’t file a petition under Article 32. He also can’t file a 226 petition. There will be a prosecution launched for the obstruction of violating his right to discharge his functions.”As quoted by Bar and Bench, Sibal also told the court, “Any obstruction in performance of a statutory duty is not in violation of a fundamental right. If someone obstructs a police officer, he can’t file a 32 petition. There is a statutory remedy. Otherwise every police officer will file a 32. We can’t interpret a law in the context of a particular situation and then open a Pandora’s box inconsistent with the basic features of criminal law.”He further argued that an ED officer has only a statutory right to investigate, not a “fundamental right” to do so. “He (ED officer) only has a right under a statute to investigate. And violation of that right is not a violation of fundamental right,” Bar and Bench quoted him as saying.
Bench questions whether ED should seek remedy from CM-led state
The Bench also raised a sharp question over the practical consequence of the state’s argument.“If the CM barges into an ED investigation and commits an offence, your idea of remedy for the ED is to go to the state government which is headed by the CM and inform them about it and seek remedy?” Justice Mishra asked.Sibal responded that the court was presuming the Chief Minister had committed an offence. “Your lordships are assuming that the chief minister has committed an offence,” he said, according to PTI.Justice Mishra clarified that the Bench was not making any finding and was only referring to the allegations in the plea.“We are not assuming anything. That is the allegation. Do not mistake us. Every allegation is based on some facts, if there are no facts, there is no need to be investigated. That is what they are praying for, for CBI to investigate,” the judge said.Sibal also argued that if ED officers came across another offence while investigating under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), they should inform the concerned agency — in this case the state government — under Section 66 of PMLA.
Court rejects suggestion to defer hearing due to elections
The Supreme Court also firmly pushed back against a suggestion that the case be postponed because of the upcoming West Bengal Assembly elections.According to Bar and Bench, senior advocate Kalyan Banerjee, appearing for Banerjee, referred to an earlier instance where a judge had declined to hear a matter due to elections.The Bench, however, made it clear it would not entertain such a request.“We don’t want to be party to election, we don’t want to be party to any crime also. We know the timing of the court. We know the timing of the decision,” Justice Mishra said, as reported by Bar and Bench.Kalyan Banerjee also argued that the state’s consent is required for a CBI investigation, though constitutional courts have the power in appropriate cases.
Hearing remains inconclusive, next date on April 14
The hearing remained inconclusive and will continue on April 14.The matter centres on the ED’s plea alleging interference and obstruction by the West Bengal government, including Mamata Banerjee, during its January 8 search at the I-PAC office and the premises of its director Pratik Jain in connection with an alleged coal-pilferage scam.The agency has sought a CBI probe and also challenged the FIRs lodged in West Bengal against its officers.
Case stems from January 8 I-PAC raid in coal smuggling probe
Banerjee allegedly entered the I-PAC office and the residence of its co-founder while ED officers were conducting searches in connection with a money laundering investigation and allegedly removed documents and electronic devices from the premises.She reportedly claimed the material related to her political party. I-PAC has been associated with the Trinamool Congress since the 2019 Lok Sabha elections.The ED has said the searches were linked to its probe into a 2020 money laundering case against businessman Anup Majee, accused of involvement in coal smuggling.The agency alleged that a coal smuggling syndicate led by Majee illegally excavated coal from Eastern Coalfields Ltd (ECL) leasehold areas in West Bengal and sold it to various factories and plants in the state, with a large part allegedly sold to the Shakambhari Group of companies.
Earlier, SC had termed obstruction allegations ‘very serious’
On January 15, the top court had described the allegations against the Chief Minister as “very serious” and agreed to examine whether a state’s law-enforcing agencies can interfere with a central agency’s investigation into a serious offence.It stayed the FIRs filed against ED officials who carried out the raid and directed the West Bengal Police to preserve the CCTV footage of the operation.The court had also issued notices to Mamata Banerjee, the West Bengal government, former DGP Rajeev Kumar and senior police officials on the ED’s petitions seeking a CBI probe.Tthe Bench also questioned where the ED would go if it could not move the Supreme Court under Article 32 or a High Court under Article 226, observing that “there cannot be a vacuum.”
State says ED plea under Article 32 is not maintainable
The West Bengal government has consistently opposed the ED’s move under Article 32.The state argued the searches at I-PAC were not obstructed, and that the ED’s own panchnama showed this.It also contended that an Article 32 petition can be filed only by citizens alleging a violation of fundamental rights, and therefore the ED’s petition against a state government is not maintainable.The state warned allowing a central government department to file a writ petition against a state government could be dangerous to the federal structure.
