I-PAC case: SC says Mamata Banerjee’s role in ED probe raises constitutional concerns

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Wednesday expressed displeasure over West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee’s alleged intervention during an Enforcement Directorate (ED) raid on I-PAC offices, observing that such conduct raises “larger constitutional concerns”.

Hearing the ED’s writ petition alleging obstruction by Banerjee and state police, the Bench of Justices PK Mishra and NV Anjaria indicated that the issue goes beyond a routine Centre–state dispute. “This is not a dispute between the state and the central government,” the Court said, questioning attempts to frame it as such.

Court questions CM’s intervention, scope of dispute

The Bench underlined that interference by a sitting Chief Minister in an ongoing probe cannot be reduced to an inter-governmental disagreement. “You cannot walk in. Any Chief Minister of any state walks in the midst of an inquiry of an investigation and you say that it is a dispute essentially between the state and the central government?”

It added that the matter concerns an “act committed by an individual who happens to be the Chief Minister”, with implications for “the whole system and whole democracy”.

In earlier proceedings, the Court had also asked whether the ED could seek remedies from state authorities when the alleged obstruction was by the head of the state government. It further remarked that “one does not cease to be a citizen of India by becoming an ED officer”.

Maintainability row under Article 32

The West Bengal government has challenged the maintainability of the ED’s plea under Article 32, arguing that such disputes should fall under Article 131.

Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi contended, “ED has no fundamental right to investigate. No such fundamental right has been created by your lordships in any form in any manner at any time.” He added that “ED officers have no fundamental right to investigate”.

Singhvi argued that an officer “has no existence, no identity… except as a person discharging the duties under the statute”, and cannot indirectly claim rights unavailable directly.

Constitution, rights and ‘unprecedented’ questions

Senior Advocate Menaka Guruswamy submitted that Article 32 is meant for citizens, not the state. “The state cannot simultaneously occupy the position of a constitutional wrongdoer and a victim,” she said, adding that allowing such petitions would “weaken Article 32 for all citizens”.

She termed the ED’s plea “a unique proposition… not been advanced ever before”, warranting scrutiny as a substantial constitutional question.

Senior Advocate Sidharth Luthra argued that ED, as a Union agency, “has no independent value” to invoke Article 32, and questioned parallel proceedings.

The Bench, however, stressed the exceptional nature of the case. “This is not only a case of Ram versus Shyam. This is an extraordinary litigation,” it observed, noting that “every new situation will throw and pose new questions to the court”.

Arguments on maintainability concluded, with Solicitor General Tushar Mehta set to respond for the ED.