Mamata Banerjee A surprise inspection of I-PAC was conducted on January 8 to ask ED officials what redress could be taken if their rights were allegedly violated.
A bench of Justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and NV Anjaria said some ED officials had also approached the court in their personal capacity, raising the question of whether they ceased to be citizens simply because they were serving in the agency, news agency PTI reported.
Court asks state government to pay attention to rights of education officials
During the hearing, senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for Banerjee, argued that a petitioner invoking Article 32 must clearly show which fundamental right has been violated.He pointed out that the ED officer who filed the writ petition did not specifically plead any violation of fundamental rights and said the ED itself was not even a “person” for the purpose of such petition.At this stage, Justice Mishra told the state not to consider the agency as an institution but to focus on the officials who had also approached the court.“Please focus on the fundamental rights of ED officers in connection with the crime. Otherwise, you will miss the point. You cannot forget the second petition preferred by the individual officer who is a victim of the crime. I tell you, you will face difficulties. Don’t just say ED, ED, ED,” the Bar Council quoted Justice Mishra as saying.Barr and Bench similarly reported that the court asked ED officials whether they ceased to be Indian citizens simply because they were officials of the agency.The court further said, “Different political parties rule the Center and the states. If some chief ministers of the other side do this in 2030 and 2031, and you are in power at the center and their chief ministers do this, how will you react?”
Kapil Sibal says obstruction of legal obligations is not a matter of fundamental rights
Sibal argued that obstruction of the performance of legal obligations cannot automatically be considered a violation of fundamental rights.He said: “If someone obstructs the police, he cannot file a petition under Section 32. He was also unable to submit a 226 application. Proceedings will be brought for obstruction and infringement of his rights in the performance of his duties. “As quoted by Bar and Bench, Sibal also told the court, “Any conduct that hinders the performance of statutory duties does not infringe fundamental rights. If someone obstructs a police officer, he cannot file a 32 application. There are statutory remedies. Otherwise every police officer would file a 32 application.” We cannot interpret the law in specific circumstances and then open a Pandora’s box that does not meet the basic characteristics of criminal law.“He further argued that school board officials had only a statutory right to investigate, not a “fundamental right” to do so. “He (the education board official) has the power to conduct investigations only under the statute. Infringement of that right does not violate fundamental rights,” the Bar Association quoted him as saying.
Judge questions whether ED should seek redress from CM-led state
The judge also raised pointed questions about the practical consequences of the state’s argument.“If the chief minister breaks into the ED to investigate and commits a crime, will your remedy against the ED be to go to the state government headed by the chief minister, inform them about the matter and seek redress?” Justice Misra asked.Sibal responded that the court presumed the chief minister was guilty. “Your Excellencies believe that the Chief Minister has committed a crime,” he said, according to the Press Trust of India.Justice Mishra clarified that the judge had not made any findings but had only referred to the allegations in the plea.“We are not assuming anything. That is the allegation. Don’t get us wrong. Every allegation is based on some facts and if there are no facts, there is no need for investigation. That is what they are praying for, that the CBI will investigate,” the bench said.Sibal also argued that if ED officials discover other violations while conducting investigations under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), they should inform the relevant agency (in this case, the state government) under Section 66 of the PMLA.
Court rejects suggestion to postpone hearing because of election
The Supreme Court also firmly rejected suggestions to postpone the hearing of the case due to the upcoming assembly elections in West Bengal.Senior lawyer Kayan Banerjee, appearing for Banerjee, referred to an earlier case in which a judge refused to hear a case due to elections, according to the Bar Association.However, the judge made it clear that he would not accept such a request.“We don’t want to be a party to the election, and we don’t want to be a party to any crime. We know the court date. “We know when the decision will be taken,” Justice Mishra said, according to the Bar Association.Kalyan Banerjee also argued that while the Constitutional Court has powers in appropriate cases, a CBI investigation requires the consent of the state.
The hearing is still inconclusive and the next date is April 14
The hearing has not reached a conclusion and will continue on April 14.At the heart of the matter is the ED’s accusation of interference and obstruction by the West Bengal government, including Mamata Banerjee, during the January 8 raids at the I-PAC office and the residence of its director Pratik Jain, in connection with the alleged coal theft scam.The agency has sought a CBI probe and challenged the FIR filed against its officials by the state of West Bengal.
The case stems from a January 8 I-PAC raid investigating coal smuggling.
Banerjee allegedly entered the office of I-PAC and the residence of its co-founder during a search conducted by ED officials in connection with money laundering probe and allegedly took away documents and electronic equipment from the premises.She reportedly claimed to have material related to her party. I-PAC has been associated with the Trinamool Congress since the 2019 Lok Sabha elections.The Education Ministry said the raids were related to its investigation into a 2020 money laundering case against businessman Anup Majee, who was accused of being involved in coal smuggling.The agency alleged that the coal smuggling syndicate headed by Majee illegally mined coal from the Eastern Coalfields Limited (ECL) lease area in West Bengal and sold it to various mills and factories in the state, a large portion of which was allegedly sold to the Shakambhari group of companies.
Earlier, the SC had termed the obstruction of justice charges as “very serious”
On January 15, the Supreme Court had described the allegations against the chief minister as “very serious” and agreed to review whether a state’s law enforcement agency can interfere in the investigation of serious crimes by a central agency.It preserved an FIR against the ED officials who carried out the raid and directed the West Bengal police to preserve CCTV footage of the operation.The court also issued notice to Mamata Banerjee, the West Bengal government, former DGP Rajeev Kumar and senior police officers on the education ministry’s petition seeking a CBI probe.The bench also questioned where the ED would go if it cannot move a motion before the Supreme Court under Section 32 or the High Court under Section 226, stating that “there cannot be a vacuum”.
State government says ED’s plea under Section 32 is not maintainable
The West Bengal government has consistently opposed action taken by ED under Article 32.The state argued that I-PAC’s search was not hindered and the ED’s own panchnama also showed this.It also held that only a citizen alleging violation of fundamental rights can file a Section 32 petition and therefore the ED’s petition against the state government was untenable.The state has warned that allowing central government departments to file writ petitions against state governments could pose danger to the federal fabric.
