Supreme Court Questions West Bengal Government on ED's Complaint Against Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee
The Supreme Court of India raised a pointed question on Tuesday, asking the West Bengal government how a central agency like the Enforcement Directorate (ED) can approach a state authority headed by the Chief Minister when the complaint is against the CM herself. This query came during a hearing on petitions filed by the ED and its officers against the Bengal government, Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee, Kolkata Police commissioner, and other state officials.
Court's Inquiry During Hearing
The bench, comprising Justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and N V Anjaria, posed this question to Kapil Sibal, counsel for CM Mamata Banerjee. Sibal had argued that the ED cannot petition the Supreme Court over alleged violations of its fundamental rights and should instead resort to statutory remedies, such as lodging an FIR under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).
The bench specifically asked: "If the CM barges into an ED investigation, your idea of remedy for ED is to go to the state government which is headed by the CM and inform them about it and seek remedy?" This highlighted the apparent conflict of interest in the situation.
Background of the Case
The petitions stem from incidents in January, when the ED alleged that it was not allowed to discharge its duties while carrying out raids in Kolkata. These raids were part of a money laundering probe linked to the coal 'scam' case and included searches at the office of political consultancy firm I-PAC. The ED claims that state officials obstructed their investigation, prompting the agency to seek judicial intervention.
Arguments Presented by Kapil Sibal
Kapil Sibal contended that the allegations levelled by the ED amount to a violation of statutory rights, for which a police complaint could be filed. He emphasized that a violation of statutory rights does not equate to a violation of fundamental rights, which would justify a writ petition in the Supreme Court.
Sibal argued: "If Enforcement Directorate is investigating under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) and some other offence has come to the notice of its officers, then the agency concerned, in this case the state government, should be informed as per section 66 of PMLA." He added that government officials acting under statutory provisions cannot invoke fundamental rights in the event of obstruction in discharge of duties, as there are statutory remedies available.
Furthermore, Sibal pointed out that the ED and its officials filed writ petitions without alleging which specific fundamental rights were breached. "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," he stated.
Court's Counter-Argument
The bench, however, countered this by stating that the alleged second charge—not allowing the ED to conduct raids—was separate from the PMLA case. They argued that the offence was committed against ED officials themselves, making it a distinct issue that might warrant different legal considerations.
Call for Larger Bench
Senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, representing the Bengal Director General of Police (DGP), told the Supreme Court that the question of the petition's maintainability should be adjudicated by a larger bench. He highlighted that important questions of law are involved in this case, suggesting that a more comprehensive judicial review is necessary.
This development underscores the ongoing legal tussle between central agencies and state governments in India, particularly in cases involving high-profile political figures. The Supreme Court's questioning reflects broader concerns about accountability and procedural fairness in such investigations.
