SC slams Mamata for meddling in ED raid
Supreme Court on Wednesday admonished West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee for intervening during the Enforcement Directorate (ED) during raid at I-PAC. The apex court observed that the Chief Minister barging into the ED raid has put democracy in peril. “This is not a dispute between the Centre and the state. A chief minister of any state just walks in in the midst of an inquiry or investigation, puts democracy in peril and then you say it is a dispute between the Centre and the state,” a bench of Justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and NV Anjaria said.
The remarks came when senior advocate Menaka Guruswamy, appearing in the court for a senior West Bengal official, questioned the maintainability of the ED’s plea, saying the dispute is essentially between the Centre and the State. “This is, per se, an act committed by an individual who happens to be the Chief Minister of a state, keeping the whole system and democracy in jeopardy,” Justice Mishra observed.
The court was hearing arguments on the ED’s plea that has alleged obstruction by Banerjee and other state authorities during its January 8 search of the office of political-consultancy firm Indian Political Action Committee (I-PAC) in Kolkata in connection with a money-laundering probe. The bench observed that several judgments, including the historic Kesavananda Bharati verdict of 1973 that laid down the “basic structure doctrine” of the Constitution, were cited before it during the hearing.
“But none of them would have ever conceived of a situation that in this country, a day will come when a sitting chief minister will walk into the office...,” Justice Mishra said.
Guruswamy said, “I am on the maintainability.... There was no misconduct, there was no intimidation to any officer.” The bench did not agree with the submissions that the questions raised in the matter should be referred to a larger bench. “We will decide whether an Article-32 petition in maintainable or not. What is the substantial question of law which requires consideration by a five-judge bench?” it asked. While observing that it is not hearing an appeal, the bench said there would be some questions of law involved in all the pleas filed before it but that does not mean that every Article-32 petition should be referred to a five-judge bench.
The bench also heard the submissions advanced by senior advocate Siddharth Luthra, who appeared in the court for one of the respondents. “This is an extraordinary situation. Before the other bench where the SIR (Special Intensive Revision of the electoral roll) is under question, we have seen the situation where several judicial officers were kept hostage. Now, you want that the petitioners (the ED and its officials) should have gone to a magistrate with a section-200 (CrPC) complaint?” the bench asked.
“We cannot shut our eyes from the reality of what is happening. We cannot lose sight of the practical situation which is present at the spot in the state,” Justice Mishra observed. The judge further said it is not litigation between Ram and Shyam, as this is an extraordinary situation where the contours are totally different. The hearing in the matter remained inconclusive and would continue on Thursday.
