Solicitor General Tushar Mehta on Thursday argued before the Supreme Court that the Enforcement Directorate’s (ED) petition under Article 32 of the Constitution must be examined in light of facts, not as a purely legal abstraction and maintainability as pleaded by respondents.
Read respondents’ arguments:
- I-PAC Raid Case: 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/
- I-PAC Raid Case: SC Points to ED Officers’ Fundamental Rights Amid Challenge to Locus of ED to file Writ Petition https://thebarbulletin.com/supreme-court-ed-ipac-article-32-locus/
ED’s Submissions
Opening his submissions, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta said, “Maintainability of any proceedings necessarily depends upon the facts of each case… it can never be tested as an abstract proposition of law.” He clarified that he was not making a general argument on Article 32, but confining himself strictly to the facts of the present case.
Referring to the January 8 searches conducted under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA), Mr Mehta submitted that ED officers were obstructed during lawful exercise. He told the bench of Justice PK Mishra and Justice NV Najaria that West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee and senior police officials entered the premises under search and removed materials already seized by ED teams.
Describing the incident as serious, Mehta submitted, “There is a complete absence of rule of law,” adding that the rule of law forms part of Article 14 and therefore directly engages fundamental rights jurisdiction.
He further argued that ED officers are now facing criminal cases for performing official duties. “Those who obstructed the investigation are now prosecuting the investigators,” he said, pointing to FIRs registered by state police against ED personnel.
On the question of locus, Mr Mehta submitted that both individual officers and the agency can invoke Article 32. He argued that ED acts in a representative capacity in money laundering cases, stating, “When we are prevented from exercising our duty, the victims are the citizens of India.”
Relying on affidavits filed by state authorities, Mr Mehta contended that key facts are not seriously disputed. He pointed out that the Chief Minister has acknowledged visiting the premises, saying she went to retrieve certain data, and argued that this supports the ED’s factual case. He also attempted to show a broader pattern of obstruction by referring to past incidents involving the Central Bureau of Investigation. “This is not an isolated incident… it is a pattern,” he submitted.
Addressing the issue of alternative remedies, Mr Mehta argued that approaching the state police would not be viable in such circumstances. “Can I go and ask the same police to investigate their own Chief Minister? I cannot,” he told the Court.
With these arguments, ED has sought a court-monitored probe by the CBI, transfer of FIRs against its officers, and protection from alleged interference. Framing the issue broadly, Mr Mehta said, “This is not a fight between A versus B… this is about whether rule of law will prevail.”
Background of the Case
The present writ petition has been filed by the Enforcement Directorate and its officials under Article 32 of the Constitution in relation to the IPAC raid case arising from searches conducted on January 8, 2026, in connection with an alleged coal smuggling and money laundering probe under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act.
During these searches at premises linked to I-PAC (Indian Political Action Committee) and others, ED claims its officers were obstructed by West Bengal police and that Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee personally visited the site and removed all documents and electronic material. The State, on the other hand, submitted that the visit was to secure sensitive political data, leading to cross-FIRs and the present plea seeking transfer of investigation and protection for ED officers.
Following this, the Supreme Court on January 15, 2026, issued notice in the matter, stayed further proceedings in the FIRs against ED officials, and directed preservation of CCTV footage from the searched premises, while observing that the plea raises serious issues regarding alleged interference by state authorities in central agency investigations.
Read at- I-PAC Raid Case: SC Issues Notice In ED Plea Over Alleged Obstruction By CM Mamata Banerjee, Stays FIRs, Orders Preservation Of CCTV Footage https://thebarbulletin.com/ipac-raid-case-sc-notice-ed-stays-firs-cctv/
In a subsequent hearing dated April 22, 2026, the Court also expressed strong disapproval of the Chief Minister’s conduct, remarking that such interference raises serious concerns for democracy and the rule of law.
Read at- ‘CM Cannot Walk Into Probe and Put Democracy in Peril’; SC in IPAC Raid Case https://thebarbulletin.com/sc-ipac-raid-ed-probe-democracy-concern/