The Supreme Court on Tuesday continued hearing respondents in the Enforcement Directorate’s & its officers writ petition alleging obstruction by West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee and state police officials during a search operation at the office of political consultancy firm I-PAC. Senior advocate Kapil Sibal continued his arguments on the maintainability of the petition under Article 32.
Also read- SC Raises Remedial ‘Vacuum’ Concern as State of WB Argues on Maintainability of the Writ Petition by ED https://thebarbulletin.com/supreme-court-ipac-case-ed-writ-maintainability/
Appearing for the State, Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal argued that the petition was fundamentally flawed, contending that neither the ED nor its officers had demonstrated any violation of a fundamental right, which is a prerequisite for invoking Article 32.
“In the absence of a continuing violation of a fundamental right, a petition under Article 32 will not lie… officials acting under statutory provisions have no fundamental right in discharge of their duties.”
Mr Sibal further argued that the ED, being neither a juristic person nor a citizen, cannot invoke fundamental rights, and that even individual officers acting in their official capacity cannot seek constitutional remedies for obstruction of statutory functions.
The Bench of Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice NV Anjaria, however, raised questions regarding the rights of individual officers, observing that they do not cease to be citizens merely because they are discharging official duties.
Merely because they are officers of the ED, do they cease to become citizens of India?”
The State also opposed the petition on federalism grounds, warning that permitting a central agency to directly invoke Article 32 against a state government could disturb the constitutional balance. Senior Advocate Kalyan Banerjee, appearing for the Chief Minister, echoed these concerns and argued that the ED had not even filed a formal complaint before seeking transfer of the investigation to the CBI.
Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, appearing for the State’s top police officials, urged the Court to consider referring the issue of maintainability to a larger Bench, citing the complexity of questions surrounding who can invoke fundamental rights.
The Bench also engaged with the factual allegations, noting that the case involved two distinct aspects, ED’s investigation under PMLA and alleged obstruction by state actors, which may require separate legal consideration.
Hearing in this matter will continue in April.