Supreme Court Reviews ED's Writ Petition Under Article 32 Against West Bengal Govt Overview The Constitution Bench comprising Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice N.V. Anjaria is hearing a petition filed by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) . The ED alleges that the West Bengal administration, led by Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee , obstructed its January 8, 2026 raid on the political consultancy I‑PAC in Kolkata, linked to a coal‑scam money‑laundering probe. The ED seeks registration of a CBI FIR against the Chief Minister and state police officials. Key Developments The ED has invoked Article 32 to compel the state to register a FIR, arguing violation of its statutory powers. Senior Advocate Shyam Divan contends that the ED lacks juristic personality and therefore cannot claim fundamental‑rights protection, warning of a threat to the federal structure . Divan points out that statutes such as the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) do not confer a "right to sue" on the ED, unlike bodies like SEBI . Justice Mishra raised the practical dilemma: if both Article 32 and Article 226 are unavailable, what remedy exists when a State allegedly hampers a central agency? Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal reinforced the argument that the ED cannot compel the CBI to register an FIR; such direction can only arise from a proper criminal proceeding. Important Facts The petition (W.P.(Crl.) No. 16/2026) was filed under Article 32 on March 18, 2026 . The West Bengal police have lodged three FIRs against ED officials for alleged obstruction. The Supreme Court has ordered preservation of CCTV footage and electronic material from the January raid. Parallel petitions from the states of Kerala and Tamil Nadu raise the same jurisdictional issue. UPSC Relevance This case touches upon several core UPSC topics: Centre‑State Relations : The dispute tests the constitutional mechanisms (Article 131, Article 300) that govern conflicts between Union and State governments. Judicial Review : It examines the scope of writ jurisdiction under Articles 32 and 226, and the concept of "person" for fundamental‑rights enforcement. Statutory Agencies : Understanding the legal status of investigative bodies like the ED, CBI, and SEBI is essential for questions on administrative law. Basic Structure Doctrine : The argument that allowing a department to file writs could erode the federal balance relates directly to this doctrine. Way Forward Both sides have urged the Court to refer the matter to a larger bench under Article 145 for a definitive ruling on: Whether a central investigative agency can invoke Article 32 or Article 226 against a State. The appropriate constitutional remedy when a State allegedly obstructs a Union agency, possibly via Union‑government action under Article 300. Clarification on statutory “right to sue” for investigative agencies. Until a larger bench pronounces, the Supreme Court will continue hearing arguments, with the next hearing scheduled for March 24, 2026 . Aspirants should monitor the outcome, as it will shape future jurisprudence on Centre‑State disputes and the functional autonomy of enforcement agencies.