Supreme Court reserves verdict on ED's Article 32 plea for CBI probe against Mamata Banerjee

The Supreme Court on Thursday reserved its verdict on a petition filed by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) seeking a probe by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) into alleged obstructions during its search operations at the Kolkata premises of political consultancy firm I-PAC [ED v. State of West Bengal & Ors.].

The matter concerns an incident from January 8, when TMC leader and the then West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee, entered the premises of political consultancy firm Indian Pac Consulting Private Limited (I-PAC) and allegedly took away certain sensitive files.

A Bench of Justices PK Mishra and NV Anjaria reserved orders after hearing arguments on behalf Banerjee, the ED, and other respondents.

"Arguments concluded, reserved for order/judgment," the Court said.

The ED had moved the top court under Article 32 of the Constitution, alleging that on January 8, Banerjee and senior State police officials barged into I-PAC's Kolkata office and the residence of its co-founder Pratik Jain while searches were underway in connection with a 2020 coal smuggling money laundering case against businessman Anup Majee.

The agency claimed that the intervention resulted in the forced removal of critical physical and electronic evidence. Banerjee, however, maintained that the material pertained solely to her political party (Trinamool Congress), which has been associated with the consultancy firm since 2019.

The ED had initially moved the Calcutta High Court against the alleged interference, but was compelled to approach the Supreme Court after proceedings in Kolkata could not take place due to an unruly commotion inside the courtroom.

When the matter first came up before the apex court on January 15, the Bench had observed that failing to examine the issues would lead to "lawlessness," and issued notice to Banerjee, Director General of Police (DGP) Rajeev Kumar, and others.

During subsequent hearings, the maintainability of the plea came under sharp scrutiny. The State - then led by the TMC - contended that Article 32 is a constitutional remedy meant solely for citizens to enforce fundamental rights against State excess, and cannot be invoked by an investigating agency.

Responding to the maintainability challenge, the Bench had observed that a Chief Minister interrupting central agency raids was not a "happy situation," adding that there cannot be a vacuum where an investigating agency is left without a legal remedy.

During today's hearing, Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for Banerjee, submitted that the petition had become infructuous following a change of government in the State.

The State, now led by the BJP, may now refer the matter to the CBI even without the Court issuing any directive, he pointed out.

"Now she is not the Chief Minister. So there is no impediment. Now the State government has another government. Now they are entitled to send any matter to the CBI. If they wish to do it, no one can stand in their way. But why should your lordships do it? The State has that power... The complete basis is gone," Sibal argued.

Representing the ED, Additional Solicitor General (ASG) SV Raju, however, maintained that a court-mandated investigation was essential to prevent allegations of political bias.

"Otherwise it will be said that the Supreme Court did not entertain because it didn’t find any substance... The State police may act in a mala fide manner. We want a fair investigation," Raju submitted.

Raju added that police officers involved in the alleged incident remain in service and could influence any local inquiry. He further pointed out that since complaints were also lodged against ED officials, cross-cases had arisen that require investigation by an independent central agency.

"If it goes to the same agency, they can even transfer that to the CBI. I don’t understand what their argument is. They have all the powers under the Act... They have got double engine," Sibal countered.

"Then what is the point of having double engine? He (ASG Raju) wants an Article 32 engine," the Bench remarked in jest.

With arguments concluded, the Court reserved the matter for judgment.

[Read Live Coverage]