Court: ‘Don’t just say ED, ED, ED’: Supreme Court questions West Bengal government in Mamata I-PAC raid case | India News
Mamata Banerjee During a raid on the I-PAC on January 8, it was asked what remedy ED officers would get if their rights were violated.According to news agency PTI, a bench of Justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and NV Anjaria said some ED officers had approached the court in their personal capacity, raising the issue of whether they cease to be citizens simply because they work for the agency.
The court asked the state to look into the rights of ED officers
During the hearing, senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for Banerjee, argued that an Article 32 petitioner must clearly show that any fundamental right has been violated.He submitted that the writ petition filed by the ED officer did not specifically plead violation of fundamental rights and stated that the ED itself was not a “person” for the purpose of such a petition.At this stage, Justice Mishra asked the state to look beyond the agency as an institution and focus on the officers who approached the court.“Please concentrate on the fundamental rights of the officers of the ED with whom the crime has been committed. Otherwise, you will miss the point. You cannot forget the second petition which is preferred by the crime victims. You will be in trouble, I tell you. Don’t just say ED, ED, ED,” the bench and bar quoted Justice Mishra as saying.The court also asked whether ED officers ceased to be citizens of India merely because they were officers of the agency.The court also said, “Different political parties rule the Center and the states. If some chief ministers of other parties do it in 2030 and 2031 and you come to power in the central government and their chief minister does it, what will be your reaction?”
Kapil Sibal says, obstruction of statutory duty is not a fundamental rights issue
Sibal argued that obstruction of a statutory duty cannot automatically be considered a violation of a fundamental right.He said, “If someone obstructs a police officer, he cannot file a petition under Section 32. He cannot also file a 226 petition. A case will be filed for violation of his right to perform his duties.”As quoted by the bar and bench, Sibal also told the court, “Any obstruction in the performance of a statutory duty is not a violation of fundamental rights. If someone obstructs a police officer, he cannot file a 32 petition. There is a statutory remedy. Otherwise every police officer shall file a 32. We cannot interpret a statute in the context of a particular situation and then open a Pandora’s box inconsistent with the basic features of the criminal law.“He also argued that an ED officer only has a statutory right to investigate, not a “fundamental right” to do so. “He (ED officer) has the right to investigate only under a law. And violation of that right is not violation of fundamental rights,” the bar and bench told him.
The bench questioned whether the ED should seek redress from the CM-led state
The bench also questioned the practical implications of the state’s argument.“If the CM jumps into an ED investigation and commits a crime, your idea of a remedy for the ED is to go to the state government headed by the CM and inform them about it and seek redress?” Justice Mishra asked.Sibal responded that the court assumed the CM had committed the crime. “Your Lordships are assuming that the Chief Minister has committed a crime,” he said, according to PTI.Justice Mishra clarified that the bench was not making any inquiry and was merely mentioning the allegations in the petition.“We are not presuming anything. That is the allegation. Don’t get us wrong. Every allegation is based on some facts, if there is no facts then there is no need for investigation. That is what they are praying, let the CBI investigate,” the judge said.Sibal also argued that if the ED officers come across any other offense 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 the PMLA.
The court rejected suggestions that the hearing be postponed due to the election
The Supreme Court also strongly pushed back against the suggestion that the case be adjourned due to the upcoming West Bengal Assembly elections.According to the bar and bench, senior advocate Kalyan Banerjee, appearing for Banerjee, cited an earlier instance where a judge had refused to hear a matter on election grounds.The bench, however, made it clear that such a request would not be entertained.“We don’t want to be gangs in elections, we don’t want to be gangs of crime. We know court time. We know the timing of the decision,” Justice Misra said, according to Bar and Bench reports.Kalyan Banerjee also argued that state consent is required for CBI investigations, even though the Constitutional Court has jurisdiction in appropriate cases.
The hearing is unscheduled, with the next date set for April 14
The hearing was inconclusive and will continue on April 14.The matter centers on the ED’s plea alleging interference and obstruction by the West Bengal government, including Mamata Banerjee, during the January 8 search of the I-PAC office and its director Prateek Jain’s premises in connection with the coal theft scam.The agency has sought a CBI probe and challenged the FIRs filed in West Bengal against its officers.
The case stems from an I-PAC raid on January 8 in a coal smuggling probe
Banerjee barged into the I-Pak office and its co-founder’s residence while ED officers were conducting searches for money laundering probe and allegedly removed documents and electronic devices from the premises.He claimed material related to his political party. I-PAC has been associated with the Trinamool Congress since the 2019 Lok Sabha elections.The ED said the findings were linked to the probe into the 2020 money laundering case against businessman Anup Maji, accused of involvement in coal smuggling.The agency alleged that a coal smuggling syndicate led by Maji illegally mined coal from the Eastern Coalfields Limited (ECL) leasehold areas in West Bengal and sold it to various factories and plants in the state, allegedly selling a large portion of it to the Shakambari Group of Companies.
Earlier, the SC termed the obstruction charge as ‘very serious’
On January 15, the apex court described the allegations against the chief minister as “very serious” and agreed to examine whether a state’s law enforcement agencies can interfere with a central agency’s investigation into a serious crime.It stayed the FIRs filed against the ED officials who conducted the raid and directed the West Bengal Police to preserve the CCTV footage of the operation.The court also issued notices to Mamata Banerjee, the West Bengal government, former DGP Rajeev Kumar and senior police officials on the ED’s plea for a CBI probe.The bench also questioned where the ED would go if it could not go to the Supreme Court under Article 32 or the High Court under Article 226, observing that “there cannot be a vacuum.”
The State said the ED’s application under Section 32 was not maintainable
The West Bengal government has consistently opposed the ED’s action under Article 32.The state argued that the I-Pac searches were not obstructed and the ED’s own panchanama showed this.It also contended that an Article 32 petition can only be filed by citizens alleging violation of fundamental rights and therefore the ED’s petition against the state government is not maintainable.The state warned that allowing a central government department to file writ petitions against state governments could be dangerous to the federal structure.
