ED Tells Supreme Court Mamata Used State Machinery to Hinder I-PAC Probe

New Delhi: Alleging complete breakdown of law and order in West Bengal, the Enforcement Directorate on Thursday told the Supreme Court that Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee used the state machinery to obstruct its probe against I-PAC office in Kolkata related to a Rs 2,700-crore coal smuggling case.

A bench comprising justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and NV Anjaria heard Solicitor General Tushar Mehta and Additional Solicitor General S V Raju on behalf of the ED and its official Robin Bansal and they sought a direction to the CBI to register an FIR and probe the case.

The court was hearing arguments on the ED's plea that has alleged obstruction by Banerjee and other state authorities during its January 8 search of the office of political-consultancy firm Indian Political Action Committee (I-PAC) in Kolkata in connection with a money-laundering probe.

The ED alleges that the chief minister, accompanied by a large police contingent, personally intervened to halt the search and seize evidence collected by federal officers.

The proceedings began with a sharp exchange between the Solicitor General and senior advocate Menaka Guruswamy.

Guruswamy accused the ED of using the courtroom as a "social media weapon in a political campaign," labelling the SG's arguments as the behaviour of an "unelected crown".

"I cannot behave like a street fighter. I maintain a dignified silence," the solicitor general said.

Responding to the submission that the plea of ED and its officer was not maintainable, he said the petition under Article 32 was valid because "rule of law" is an integral part of Article 14 (right to equality).

He said that when a chief minister takes the law into her own hands, the fundamental rights of the investigating officers, as citizens, are violated.

"Dr Ambedkar never conceived of such a situation," Mehta said, adding "The Chief Minister along with hundreds of police officers entered the premises. They took away documents, stopped computer backups, and snatched security camera storage. This was not a standalone incident; it is a pattern".

"Can I ask the same police to investigate allegations against the chief minister when I myself am facing FIRs from them," the solicitor general said.

"There is a total failure of law and order in West Bengal. This is my legal submission. I will demonstrate how the rule of law is violated. This is a case where there is illegal smuggling of coal and the total amount runs to Rs 2,700 crore. The ED and their individual officers who are also citizens of India discharging their statutory functions are seeking protection of their fundamental rights," he said.

The law officer referred to the 2019 incident involving former Police Commissioner Rajeev Kumar to argue that West Bengal has a history of "arresting" federal officers to stall probes.

He further criticized the Director General of Police (DGP), stating that the DGP's presence at the site was justified in affidavits as "protection for a Z-category protectee," but in reality, he acted as a "personal PSO" for the chief minister.

Additional Solicitor General Raju, appearing for ED officer, said that "ex-facie bogus FIRs" were registered against the officers of the anti-money laundering probe agency.

"The local police knew the identity of the ED officers by 10:00 AM, yet they registered an FIR at 12:00 PM against 'unknown persons' claiming to be ED officers," he said.

He said ED officers were victims of "wrongful confinement and theft" and could not expect a fair investigation from the West Bengal Police, who report to the very person accused of obstruction.

He said the chief minister is also the home minister of the state and the ED officer cannot expect a fair and impartial investigation in the cases.

During the hearing, the bench asked as to how a government department could claim fundamental rights, which are traditionally "person-centric", by filing a petition under Article 32 of the Constitution.

Article 32 provides the right to move the Supreme Court by appropriate proceedings for the enforcement of fundamental rights.

"There is an inherent danger if we keep entertaining this... the court will be flooded with Article 32 petitions from different state governments," the bench said.

The solicitor general said generally states should not be allowed to file writ petitions under Article 32 before the top court. But, in cases like the present one, such petitions have to be entertained.

"If the cloak of the ED is removed, who are you," the bench asked.

The individual officers do not lose their rights as citizens simply because they are performing official duties, the law officer said.

"If an officer is detained illegally, it is his person that suffers, not just the agency," Raju said.

The ED is seeking a direction to transfer the investigation into the alleged obstruction and the "retaliatory" FIRs to the CBI, saying that an independent agency is required to investigate the conduct of the chief minister and the state's top police brass.

The hearing will resume on May 13.

On Wednesday, the alleged obstruction by the chief minister during the ED raid came under intense scrutiny with the bench saying that democracy is put in peril if a chief minister intervenes in a probe.

"This is not a dispute between the Centre and the state. A chief minister of any state just walks in in the midst of an inquiry or investigation, puts democracy in peril and then you say it is a dispute between the Centre and the state," it said.