Overview
The Supreme Court, in a hearing on 24 March 2026, probed whether the ED can seek a remedy from the State Government after Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee allegedly interfered with an ED raid on the I‑PAC office, the political consultancy of the Trinamool Congress. The Court also considered if individual ED officers can invoke Article 32 for violation of their fundamental rights.
Key Developments
- The ED has asked the Court to direct the CBI to register an FIR against the Chief Minister and state police for obstructing the raid.
- West Bengal raised preliminary objections, arguing that a Union department cannot invoke writ jurisdiction when a dispute with a State exists, citing Article 131.
- Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal contended that the ED lacks a fundamental right to investigate and that any obstruction should be dealt with under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, not through Article 32.
- Justice Mishra questioned the logic of seeking a remedy from a State government that is itself the alleged obstructer.
- Senior Advocates for the CM and the West Bengal DGP suggested referring the legal question to a larger bench, invoking the State Trading Corporation of India (1963) precedent on who can approach the Supreme Court.
Important Facts
The incident occurred on 8 January 2026 when the CM, accompanied by senior party leaders and police, entered the I‑PAC premises, confronted ED officials, and allegedly removed files and digital devices. In response, the West Bengal police lodged three FIRs against ED officers. The ED’s petition seeks a CBI‑led independent probe, arguing that state interference compromised its statutory duties under the PMLA. The Supreme Court earlier stayed further FIR proceedings and ordered preservation of CCTV footage.
Exam Relevance
This case touches upon several core UPSC themes:
- Centre‑State Relations: The dispute tests the balance of power between Union investigative agencies and State governments, invoking Article 131 (disputes between Union and States) and Article 32 (fundamental rights).
- Judicial Review: Understanding when the Supreme Court can entertain writ petitions from a Union department versus a State entity.
- Legal Frameworks: Application of the PMLA, the new criminal procedure code, and the role of the CBI in inter‑agency investigations.
- Fundamental Rights vs. Statutory Duties: The argument that officials do not possess a fundamental right to perform statutory functions, and the implications for writ jurisdiction.
Way Forward
The Court is likely to refer the legal questions to a larger bench to resolve two pivotal issues: (i) whether a Union department like the ED can invoke Article 32 for alleged obstruction, and (ii) the appropriate mechanism—state police investigation, CBI takeover, or central‑state arbitration—under existing statutes. Aspirants should monitor the final judgment for its impact on the jurisprudence of Centre‑State disputes and the scope of judicial review over investigative agencies.