Supreme Court Questions Bengal Govt On ED Officers’ Fundamental Rights In Mamata Banerjee Raid Row
Supreme Court questions West Bengal government over ED officers’ rights in Mamata Banerjee raid obstruction case
The Supreme Court on Tuesday raised sharp questions to the West Bengal government over its objection to the maintainability of a plea filed by the Enforcement Directorate (ED), asking whether officers of the agency cease to enjoy fundamental rights merely because they are government officials.
The bench of Justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and N V Anjaria was hearing petitions arising out of alleged obstruction by Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee and state authorities during an ED search at the office of Indian Political Action Committee (I-PAC) in Kolkata on January 8, in connection with a money laundering probe.
During the hearing, the Court emphasised that apart from the ED as an institution, individual officers have also approached the Court alleging violation of their rights. “Please concentrate on the fundamental rights of the officers… If you only focus on ED and ignore the individual petitions, you may miss the point,” Justice Mishra remarked.
Appearing for the West Bengal government, Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal questioned the very maintainability of the petition under Article 32 of the Constitution. He argued that the writ petition failed to specify which fundamental right had been violated. “A person moving under Article 32 must clearly state the fundamental right that has been infringed. In this case, no such violation has been pleaded,” Sibal submitted, adding that obstruction in discharge of statutory duties does not amount to a breach of fundamental rights.
He further contended that ED officials have remedies under ordinary criminal law. “If a police officer is obstructed, he cannot directly invoke Article 32. There are statutory remedies available,” he argued.
The Bench, however, appeared unconvinced by this line of reasoning. Justice Mishra posed a pointed query: “If the Chief Minister barges into an ED investigation and commits an offence, your remedy is to approach the state government headed by the same Chief Minister?”
Sibal responded by cautioning the Court against presuming wrongdoing, stating, “Your Lordships are assuming that the Chief Minister has committed an offence.”
Clarifying its stance, the Bench said it was not drawing conclusions but merely examining allegations. “Every allegation is based on some facts… otherwise there would be no need for investigation,” Justice Mishra observed.
The ED has alleged interference by the state machinery, including the Chief Minister, during its search operations at I-PAC premises and the residence of its director, Pratik Jain, in connection with an alleged coal pilferage scam.
The Court also noted that the ED has sought a probe by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) into the alleged obstruction.
Senior Advocate Kalyan Banerjee, also appearing for the State, argued that consent of the State government is necessary for a CBI probe. He submitted that while constitutional courts have powers to direct such investigations, the State’s position must be considered.
Earlier, the Supreme Court had termed the alleged obstruction “very serious” and stayed FIRs registered against ED officials in West Bengal. It had also directed preservation of CCTV footage related to the search operations and issued notices to the Chief Minister, the State government, and senior police officials, including former DGP Rajeev Kumar.
Rejecting suggestions to defer the hearing due to upcoming elections, the Bench remarked, “We don’t want to be party to election, we don’t want to be party to any crime also.”
The matter remains part-heard and is scheduled for further consideration on April 14.
The Supreme Court was hearing the plea filed by Enforcement Directorate against West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee and certain state police officers over their obstruction of a search at the office of political consultancy firm I-PAC. Recently, Senior Advocate Siddharth Luthra had told court that ED must justify how it has been weaponized in the state. In a sharp response, Additional Solicitor General SV Raju had said, "It has not been weaponized, it has been terrorized..".
In a complete reversal of her stance, West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee has told the Supreme Court that Enforcement Directorate allowed her to retrieve devices and physical files during its search at the office of political consultancy firm I-PAC, which works with the All India Trinamool Congress.
On January 15, the court had issued notice on petitions filed by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) and its officers alleging interference by West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee and senior state police officials during a search conducted at the office of political consultancy firm I-PAC and the residence of its director Prateek Jain. The bench had observed that the matter raised “larger questions” concerning the independence of investigations by central agencies and possible interference by state authorities, warranting examination by the apex court.
It had also directed the State of West Bengal to preserve CCTV footage and other electronic evidence relating to the premises searched on January 8, as well as footage from nearby areas, noting the relevance of such material to the adjudication of the dispute. The ED has sought a Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) probe against Mamata Banerjee and West Bengal police officers, alleging that the Chief Minister, accompanied by senior police officials, entered the premises during a lawful search under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) and forcibly took away digital devices and documents.
Appearing for the ED, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta had described the incident as part of a “shocking pattern” where the Chief Minister allegedly obstructed statutory authorities in the discharge of their duties. He claimed that during the January 8 search linked to the alleged coal scam, the CM, along with the Director General of Police and the Kolkata Police Commissioner, entered the premises despite being requested not to interfere.
“This is an offence of theft,” Mehta alleged, claiming that incriminating material and even an ED official’s mobile phone were taken away. He warned that such conduct would demoralise officers and discourage them from discharging their statutory functions. The SG had also referred to previous instances, including alleged obstruction of CBI investigations and gheraos of officers, to argue that there was a consistent pattern of interference. The ED had further contended that multiple FIRs had been registered against its officers following the incident, including FIRs leading to the removal of CCTV footage, and sought protection for its officers, citing threats to their Article 21 rights.
Case Title: Directorate of Enforcement v. The State of West Bengal
Bench: Justices PK Mishra and NV Anjaria
Hearing Date: March 24, 2026