Supreme Court Rules CM’s Interference Not a Centre‑State Dispute – Implications for ED’s Article 32 Petition

Overview The Supreme Court on 22 April 2026 observed that a Chief Minister’s meddling in a central investigation cannot be framed as a dispute between the Union and a State. The observation arose during hearings of writ petitions filed by the Enforcement Directorate seeking a CBI FIR against West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee for allegedly obstructing an ED raid on the political consultancy I‑PAC . Key Developments The bench (Justices Prashant Kumar Mishra & N.V. Anjaria) rejected the argument that the matter is a Centre‑State dispute under Article 131 . Justice Kumar emphasized that the interference is an act of an individual (the Chief Minister), not a state‑government action, and therefore the writ is maintainable under Article 32 . Senior Advocate Menaka Guruswamy contended that the ED cannot claim a violation of fundamental rights and that the petition should be referred to a five‑judge bench under Article 145 . Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi relied on precedents (e.g., State Trading Corporation v. Commercial Tax Officer ) to assert that corporations and statutory agencies are not "citizens" entitled to Article 19 rights. The Court questioned whether the ED can seek a remedy against the Chief Minister’s alleged obstruction, highlighting the tension between federal structure and central investigative powers. Important Facts Petitions were filed by the ED and its officers under Article 32 seeking a CBI FIR. West Bengal contended that the ED lacks legal personality to invoke fundamental rights, and that allowing a Union department to sue a State would jeopardise federalism. The Supreme Court noted that the Chief Minister’s personal interference places “the whole system and democracy in peril”. The related writ petition is pending before the Calcutta High Court. UPSC Relevance This case touches upon several core UPSC themes: the constitutional division of powers (Centre‑State relations), the scope of fundamental rights (Article 32 vs. Article 131), the role and limits of statutory agencies like the ED , and the principle of federalism. Understanding precedents such as Keshavananda Bharati and the doctrine of “no party can achieve indirectly what it cannot do directly” is essential for essay and answer writing. Way Forward The bench is likely to refer the matter to a larger bench under Article 145 , where a definitive ruling on the ED’s standing under Article 32 will be delivered. Aspirants should monitor the outcome, as it will clarify the procedural route for central agencies to challenge state actions and may set a precedent for future Centre‑State disputes involving investigative agencies.