https://www.etvbharat.com/en/bharat/sc-hearing-ed-plea-over-i-pac-raid-case-enn26031803431

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Wednesday today told the West Bengal government's lawyers in the I-PAC raid case that it cannot "dictate" to the judiciary on how to proceed on a case. It declined to adjourn the hearing of the Enforcement Directorate’s (ED) petition in connection with Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee's alleged interference during the raid at the office of I-PAC, TMC's political consultant.

The raid was conducted in January as part of a money laundering probe. The matter came up before a bench comprising Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice NV Anjaria.

During the hearing, senior advocate Shyam Divan, representing one of the respondents, sought time to file a response to a rejoinder affidavit filed by the ED. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the ED, opposed the move, calling it a delaying tactic, and added that the rejoinder had been filed four weeks earlier. “If you want to delay the matter, at least have a decent ground,” Mehta remarked.

Divan argued that the rejoinder contained fresh allegations beyond the case’s scope, a point supported by senior advocate Menaka Guruswamy, who was representing the state government.

However, the bench said it will continue to hear the matter. It said that ED can begin the arguments, and the state government can respond later.

Divan argued that if court was to proceed by ignoring the ED's rejoinder, there would not be any objection. "Why should we ignore anything? You cannot dictate and decide how we go about the case… We will consider everything which is on record…," the bench observed orally.

It was argued before the bench that state is handicapped as it would have to make submissions without a written response in connection with the ED's allegations. Divan said it is a sensitive matter which requires detailed response.

The bench made it clear that it is not inclined to adjourn the matter.

Divan contended that the state's preliminary objection to the maintainability of the ED's petition must be heard first. To this, Mehta said it can be considered along with the merits. After this, the bench allowed Divan to argue on preliminary objections.

The bench also told the state that its Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee, interrupting raids conducted by the ED, is not a "happy situation," and the central investigating agency cannot be left remediless when its functioning is interrupted.

"What happened is not a happy situation," the bench observed on the ED's allegation that Banerjee "barged" into the IPAC office while a corruption probe was on.

West Bengal government said the ED has no power to move the high court under Article 226 or the apex court under Article 32. The bench said, "Someday some other CM may enter some other office...then who will decide? We decide issues when a new situation emerges…there can't be a vacuum in such situations".

Divan argued that the ED lacked juristic personality, as it was only a government department, and allowing a central department to file a writ petition against a state government would be dangerous to the federal structure.

It was argued that Article 32 is fundamentally designed to secure the enforcement of fundamental rights, which only persons — whether natural or juristic — may invoke. It further submitted that since the ED does not possess such a status, it cannot claim any violation of fundamental rights.

The ED has sought a Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) probe against the CM, DGP, and the Kolkata police commissioner, claiming that they have obstructed a lawful money laundering probe, forcibly snatching digital devices and documents, and wrongfully confining ED officers during search operations at the political consultancy firm I-PAC

Mehta submitted that the ED is not asking the CBI to investigate the PMLA offence, but rather the offence committed by the chief minister and others. Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, representing the chief minister, said the ED does not come into the picture unless there is a predicate offence.

The bench said it is about this particular incident of the CM. Sibal asked, "Where is the scheduled offence?" "It is not about a scheduled offence. It was about these offences, which you have registered against them (the ED officers), and that is the only thing for which they have come," observed the bench.

The bench said it is not about a PMLA offence; the ED has moved before the apex court. "What we have understood from reading the petition is that the ED are claiming fundamental right qua their safety. Their safety while investigating the offence…their main plea is that while investigating the offence under PMLA they have been threatened", observed the bench.

Sibal asked, "What is the fundamental right there? How can the ED ask for registration of an FIR by the CBI?" "Unless there is a predicate offence, under the code now under BNS, ED cannot come into the picture. That is settled law….ED cannot file a writ petition for their fundamental right…have a CBI lodge an FIR," added Sibal. The top court will continue to hear the matter on next Tuesday.