Supreme Court Hearing on ED’s Raid on I-PAC The ED has moved a writ petition against the State of West Bengal alleging that Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee obstructed the agency’s raid on the office of I‑PAC , the consultant of the Trinamool Congress . The matter is before a two‑judge bench of Justice Pankaj Mishra and Justice N.V. Anjaria of the Supreme Court . Key Developments (Live Updates) 3:49 PM IST, 18 Mar 2026 – Advocate Sibal argued that the obstruction of the ED officials falls under Section 221 of the BNS Act . He sought a writ directing the CBI to register an FIR and investigate the obstruction. 3:43 PM IST – Sibal contended that the ED, being a statutory body, does not enjoy a "fundamental right" and therefore the claim of violation of any fundamental right is misplaced. 3:33 PM IST – He emphasized that the ED’s powers are statutory, derived from the central government’s authority to appoint officers for enforcement of the law, not a constitutional right. Important Facts The Court earlier stayed further proceedings in the West Bengal FIRs against ED officials and ordered preservation of CCTV footage and electronic material related to the Jan 8 search. The bench highlighted the risk of "lawlessness" if state officials impede central investigative agencies. The dispute raises questions on the balance between a state’s autonomy and the central government’s enforcement powers. UPSC Relevance 1. Centre‑State Relations : The case illustrates the constitutional tension between a state government and a central agency, a recurring theme in GS 2 (Polity). 2. Legal Framework : Understanding statutes like the BNS Act and the concept of writs is essential for law‑related questions. 3. Institutional Roles : Knowledge of the ED , Supreme Court , and the CBI are frequently asked in prelims and mains. Way Forward The bench is likely to examine whether the obstruction constitutes a cognizable offence under the BNS Act and may direct a CBI inquiry, reinforcing the principle that state officials cannot shield political entities from central investigative powers. Aspirants should monitor the final judgment for its impact on the jurisprudence of centre‑state cooperation and the operational autonomy of agencies like the ED.