Supreme Court slams Mamata Banerjee over ED raid obstruction, says ‘democracy in jeopardy’

E-PaperSubscribeSubscribeEnjoy unlimited accessSubscribe Now! Get features like The Supreme Court on Wednesday said that West Bengal chief minister Mamata Banerjee had put “the whole democracy in jeopardy” by allegedly obstructing search operations carried out by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) at the Kolkata offices of political consultancy firm I-PAC and the residence of its director Pratik Jain earlier this year. West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee. (@AITCofficial)In strong remarks a day ahead of the first phase of West Bengal polls, a bench of justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and NV Anjaria made it clear that the controversy went beyond a routine Centre-state dispute, framing it instead as an instance of individual conduct by a constitutional functionary with far-reaching implications. “This is not a dispute between the State and the Union. A chief minister of any state cannot walk in the midst of an investigation, put the democracy in peril…This is per se an act committed by an individual who happens to be the Chief Minister keeping the whole democracy in jeopardy,” the bench observed. The court added that even constitutional thinkers such as BR Ambedkar and HM Seervai would not have envisaged a situation where a sitting chief minister intervenes during an ongoing search by a central agency. “You have taken us through Seervai, Ambedkar, but none of them would have conceived this situation in this country that one day a sitting chief minister will walk into the office like this...,” said the bench. The remarks came during the hearing of petitions filed by ED and its officers under Article 32 seeking a probe by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) into the alleged obstruction. Indicating the unusual nature of the case, the bench said it could not “shut its eyes to the reality” on the ground in West Bengal and described the litigation as “extraordinary”, requiring the court to account for “socio-political realities”. “This is not a litigation between Ram Vs Shyam…contours are totally different,” said the court, disapproving of attempts by the state to reduce the matter to a conventional legal dispute over maintainability. The bench was unconvinced by submissions from senior advocates, including Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Sidharth Luthra and Menaka Guruswamy and, that ED’s petition was not maintainable under Article 32 as the agency lacked fundamental rights. It questioned whether every such plea must be referred to a constitution bench, remarking that “in every question, there will be some question of law”. At the same time, the court pushed back against arguments that ED should have pursued remedies before a magistrate, pointing to earlier proceedings where it had noted allegations of judicial officers being “kept hostage” in the state. “Before the other bench where the FIR is under question, we have seen the situation that several judicial officers had been kept hostage. And you want the petitioner should have gone to a magistrate? We cannot shut our eyes to the reality of what’s happening. We cannot lose sight of the practical situation which is present in the state,” said the bench. It was referring to the suo motu proceedings initiated by a bench led by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, concerning the April 1 incident in Malda district, where seven judicial officers, engaged in the special intensive revision (SIR) exercise, were taken hostage for hours by protesters. The controversy traces back to January 8, when Banerjee entered I-PAC premises and Jain’s residence during ED searches linked to a money laundering probe arising from a 2020 coal smuggling case. The agency has claimed that documents and electronic devices connected to the investigation were removed during the episode. Banerjee, however, has maintained that the materials pertained to her party’s election strategy and accused the ED of conducting a politically motivated search ahead of high-stakes elections. The case has since escalated into a wider institutional confrontation, with the ED invoking Article 32 -- a move the state has argued is constitutionally impermissible for a government agency. Earlier, the top court had warned that it would be “not a happy situation” if an investigating agency were left without any legal remedy in the face of such alleged obstruction, underlining that the Constitution does not contemplate a vacuum in accountability. The backdrop to the legal battle has been an intensifying probe into the financial dealings of I-PAC. On April 14, a Delhi court remanded the firm’s director Vinesh Chandel to ED custody, observing that he was prima facie involved in the “generation, diversion and possession” of proceeds of crime amounting to several crores. The court noted allegations that funds linked to a coal smuggling syndicate were routed through hawala channels to the firm, and flagged attempts to delete emails and sensitive data following the January searches, which according to investigators, pointed to efforts to obstruct the probe. The ED’s investigation originates from a CBI probe alleging illegal mining and sale of coal from Eastern Coalfields Ltd areas in West Bengal, with businessman Anup Majee identified as a key figure in the alleged syndicate. Before the top court, the state and its officers have questioned whether an investigative agency or its officers can invoke Article 32 to challenge alleged obstruction by a state government or its officials. While the state has argued that fundamental rights are enforceable only by citizens and not government departments, the court has repeatedly indicated that procedural limitations cannot be used to shield actions that may undermine the rule of law. Signalling that it may examine both maintainability and merits together, the bench remarked that constitutional adjudication must evolve with emerging governance challenges. The hearing will continue on Thursday.