Court asks state to focus on powers of ED officers

During the hearing, senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for Banerjee, argued that the petitioner invoking Article 32 will have to clearly show which fundamental right has been violated.He submitted that the ED officer filing the writ petition had not specifically pleaded violation of fundamental rights and said that the ED itself was not even a “person” for 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 had approached the court.“Please focus on the fundamental rights of the ED officers with whom the crime has been committed. Otherwise, you will miss the point. You cannot forget the second petition which has been filed by the individual officers who are victims of the crime. I am telling you that you will be in trouble. Don’t just say ED, ED, ED,” Justice Mishra was quoted as saying by Bar and Bench.The court also 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 rule at the Center and in the states. If in 2030 and 2031 a Chief Minister from the other party does this and you come to power in the Central Government and their Chief Minister does this, what will be your reaction?”

Kapil Sibal says obstruction of statutory duty is not an issue of fundamental rights

Sibal argued that obstruction in the performance 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 Article 32. He cannot also file a 226 petition. He will be prosecuted for obstruction in violation of his right to discharge his functions.”Quoting Bar and Bench, Sibal also told the court, “Any obstruction in the performance of statutory duty is not a violation of a fundamental right. If someone obstructs a police officer in his work, he cannot file a 32 petition.” There is a legal solution. Otherwise each police officer will register 32. We cannot 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 the ED officer has only the statutory authority to investigate and not the “fundamental right” to do so. Bar and Bench quoted him as saying, “They (ED officers) have the right to investigate only under the law. And violation of that right is not a violation of a fundamental right.”

Bench questions whether ED should seek solution from CM-led state

The bench also sharply questioned the practical consequences of the state’s argument.“If the Chief Minister interferes with the ED investigation and commits a crime, your idea of ​​remedy for the ED is to go to the state government, which is headed by the Chief Minister, and inform them about it and take measures?” Justice Mishra asked.Sibal replied that the court was assuming that the Chief Minister had committed a crime. “You believe the chief minister has committed a crime,” he said, according to PTI.Justice Mishra clarified that the bench was not drawing any conclusions and was only mentioning the allegations in the petition.The judge said, “We are not admitting anything. This is an allegation. Don’t mistake us. Every allegation is based on some facts, if there are no facts then there is no need for investigation. All they are praying is that it should be investigated by the CBI.”Sibal also argued that if ED officials detect 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.

Court rejected the suggestion to postpone the hearing due to elections

The Supreme Court also strongly rejected the suggestion that the case be postponed due to the upcoming West Bengal Assembly elections.According to Bar and Bench, senior advocate Kalyan Banerjee, appearing for Banerjee, cited an earlier instance where a judge had refused to hear a case because of elections.However, the bench made it clear that it would not consider such a request.“We do not want to be a partner in elections, we do not want to be a partner in any crime. We know the court timings. We know the timing of the decision,” Justice Mishra said, as reported by the bar and bench.Kalyan Banerjee also argued that state consent is necessary for a CBI investigation, although constitutional courts have the power in appropriate cases.

Hearing inconclusive, next date 14 April

The hearing remained inconclusive and will continue on April 14.The case focuses on the ED’s plea alleging interference and obstruction by the West Bengal government, including Mamata Banerjee, during the January 8 search of the premises of the I-PAC office and its director Prateek Jain in connection with the alleged coal theft scam.The agency has demanded a CBI inquiry and has also challenged the FIR lodged in West Bengal against its officials.

The case is related to the I-PAC raid on January 8 in the investigation of coal smuggling.

While ED officials were conducting searches in connection with the money laundering probe, Banerjee allegedly barged into the I-PAC office and the residence of its co-founder and allegedly removed documents and electronic devices from the premises.He allegedly claimed the content to be related to his political party. I-PAC has been associated with Trinamool Congress since the 2019 Lok Sabha elections.The ED has said that the search was related to the investigation of 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 excavated coal from the leased areas of Eastern Coalfields Limited (ECL) in West Bengal and sold it to various factories and plants in the state, with a large portion allegedly sold to the Shakambhari group of companies.

Earlier, the SC had termed the allegations of obstruction as ‘very serious’.

On January 15, the top court had termed the allegations against the chief minister as “very serious” and agreed to examine whether state law-enforcement agencies can interfere with a central agency’s investigation into a serious crime.It stayed the FIR lodged against the ED officials who conducted 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, West Bengal government, former DGP Rajeev Kumar and senior police officials on ED’s petitions seeking CBI probe.The bench also questioned where the ED would go if it could not approach the Supreme Court under Article 32 or the High Court under Article 226, noting that “there cannot be a vacuum there.”

State says ED’s petition not maintainable under Article 32

The West Bengal government has consistently opposed the ED’s move under Article 32.The state argued that the searches at I-PAC were not hampered and the ED’s own Panchnama revealed this.It was also argued that Article 32 petition can be filed only by citizens alleging violation of fundamental rights, and hence the ED’s petition against the state government is not maintainable.The state warned that allowing a central government department to file a writ petition against the state government could be dangerous for the federal structure.