In a high-stakes legal battle with significant constitutional implications, the Enforcement Directorate (ED) has moved the Supreme Court alleging a “complete breakdown of law and order” in West Bengal. The federal agency claims that Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee personally led state machinery to obstruct a money-laundering investigation into a ₹2,700-crore coal smuggling case.
The petition centers on an incident that occurred on January 8, when federal officers were searching the Kolkata office of the Indian Political Action Committee (I-PAC), a prominent political consultancy firm.
Representing the ED and its official Robin Bansal, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta told a bench comprising Justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and NV Anjaria that the Chief Minister, accompanied by a large contingent of police, intervened to halt the search.
According to the ED’s submission, the intervention resulted in the seizure of evidence already collected by federal officers. “The Chief Minister along with hundreds of police officers entered the premises. They took away documents, stopped computer backups, and snatched security camera storage,” Mehta alleged, describing the event not as a standalone incident but as part of a “pattern.”
The Solicitor General further criticized the Director General of Police (DGP), claiming that while the DGP’s presence was officially justified as protection for a Z-category protectee, he effectively acted as a “personal PSO” for the Chief Minister during the obstruction.
A key legal hurdle addressed during the hearing was whether a government department like the ED could file a petition under Article 32, which is traditionally used by individuals to protect their fundamental rights.
The bench expressed caution, noting an “inherent danger” that the court could be flooded with similar petitions from various state governments. “If the cloak of the ED is removed, who are you?” the bench asked.
Additional Solicitor General S.V. Raju, appearing for the individual ED officer, argued that federal agents do not lose their rights as citizens simply because they are on duty. “If an officer is detained illegally, it is his person that suffers, not just the agency,” Raju stated.
The ED’s counsel argued that the state police had registered “ex-facie bogus FIRs” against the federal officers. Raju pointed out that local police allegedly knew the identity of the ED officers by 10:00 AM, yet registered an FIR against “unknown persons” at noon.
The courtroom saw sharp exchanges as senior advocate Menaka Guruswamy, appearing for the state, accused the ED of using the court as a “social media weapon in a political campaign.” She characterized the Solicitor General’s arguments as the behavior of an “unelected crown.”
In response, Mehta stated, “I cannot behave like a street fighter. I maintain a dignified silence.” He maintained that when a Chief Minister takes the law into her own hands, the fundamental rights of investigating officers are violated.
The court had previously noted on Wednesday that if a Chief Minister walks into the midst of an active investigation, it puts “democracy in peril.” The ED is now seeking to have the investigation into the alleged obstruction and the retaliatory FIRs transferred to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), arguing that the West Bengal police cannot impartially investigate their own superiors.
The hearing is scheduled to resume on May 13.
