'Any minister who...': SC raps Mamata in I-PAC case
What's the story
The Supreme Court pulled up West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee for allegedly obstructing the ED raid of I-PAC, saying one cannot just walk in in the midst of an investigation. The observation was made by a bench of Justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and NV Anjaria while hearing writ petitions filed by the Enforcement Directorate (ED). The ED is seeking registration of a CBI FIR against Banerjee and state police officials for allegedly obstructing an ED raid on I-PAC.
Legal dispute
ED's plea in this matter maintainable, says Justice Kumar
The state has challenged the maintainability of the ED's writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution. Senior Advocate Menaka Guruswamy argued that this matter should be filed under Article 131 instead, as it is a dispute between the state and union. However, Justice Kumar disagreed with her argument, saying, "What right of the state does this involve? This is not a dispute between the state and central government."
Court proceedings
Justice Kumar asks if a minister can walk into inquiry
Justice Kumar further questioned if any minister could walk into an inquiry and claim it was a dispute between the state and center. "Any minister just walk in the midst of an inquiry, and you see make the democracy in peril and argues that it's a dispute essentially between the state and Centre?" Justice Kumar asked. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta then intervened, alleging that incriminating material was taken away by Banerjee during this incident.
SC
'Per se a dispute between the state and union'
In response, Justice Kumar said, "This is not per se a dispute between the state and the union. This is per se an act committed by an individual who happens to be the Chief Minister." The bench further said that even the country's legal stalwarts would not have envisioned such a situation. "You have taken us through Seervai, Ambedkar, but none of them would have conceived this situation...that one day a sitting Chief Minister will walk into the office..."
Legal argument
Guruswamy argues ED can't claim violation of fundamental rights
Guruswamy argued that the ED can't claim violation of fundamental rights under Article 32. She said Article 32 is available only to individuals, not government departments. She called this writ petition unprecedented and argued it raised a substantial question of law requiring referral to a five-judge bench under Article 145 of the Constitution. However, Justice Kumar countered that every petition has some question of law and if accepted, all petitions would have to be referred to larger benches.
State
'We cannot lose sight of practical situation'
During the hearing, the court also stated that it cannot close its eyes to the facts on the ground. "Before the other bench where the FIR is under question, we have seen the situation where several judicial officers had been kept hostage." "We cannot lose sight of the practical situation...Don't compel us to make observations. This is not a litigation between Ram vs Shyam. This is an extraordinary situation where the contours are totally different," the bench said.