The Supreme Court questioned Mamata Banerjee’s presence during an ED raid, calling it an “unusual situation” and asking whether central agencies would be left without remedy if such incidents occur again.
Supreme Court Raps Mamata Banerjee Over ED Raid Presence
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Wednesday raised concerns over West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee’s presence during an Enforcement Directorate (ED) raid, calling the situation “unusual” and questioning the legal remedies available to central agencies in such cases.
A bench comprising Justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and N V Anjaria observed that incidents involving a Chief Minister entering premises during a central agency raid could create legal complications. The court asked what recourse agencies like the ED would have if similar situations arise in the future.
The judges stressed the need to avoid a legal vacuum, noting that mechanisms must exist to address conflicts between state authorities and central agencies.
The ED approached the apex court, alleging that Mamata Banerjee’s actions during a raid at the offices linked to political consultancy firm I-PAC amounted to a “gross abuse of power.” The agency claimed she left the premises with electronic devices and documents.
The central agency has sought legal action against the Chief Minister and officials who accompanied her, arguing that such conduct obstructs investigative processes.
Representing the West Bengal government, senior advocate Shyam Divan argued that allowing a central government department to directly file a petition against a state could undermine India’s federal structure.
He contended that investigative agencies such as the CBI, Narcotics Control Bureau, and others do not have explicit statutory rights to initiate such legal proceedings independently. Extending this argument, he said similar restrictions apply to state-level agencies as well.
‘Attack my house… we know how to resist’: West Bengal CM Mamata Banerjee dares BJP at Kolkata rally
The court deliberated on whether existing constitutional provisions provide adequate remedies in such disputes. While the state maintained that the Constitution offers appropriate channels for resolution, it suggested that the matter may require consideration by a larger bench for clarity.
The case has brought into focus the delicate balance between central investigative powers and state authority, with broader implications for federal governance and institutional accountability.
