The West Bengal government has approached the Supreme Court, requesting a reference to a five-judge Constitution Bench concerning the recent raids conducted by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) at the offices of I-PAC. This request was made on the grounds that significant constitutional questions regarding Centre-State relations are at stake, as well as the admissibility of the ED’s petition under Article 32 of the Indian Constitution.

Legal Arguments Presented by the State

Senior Advocate Shyam Divan, representing the West Bengal government, argued in front of a bench consisting of Justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and K.V. Vishwanathan that the current proceedings should not be handled by a two-judge bench. He asserted that the matter involves fundamental issues regarding the constitutional framework. According to Divan, the legal dispute relates to identifying the suitable forum and approach for resolving conflicts between the Union and individual States, emphasizing the need to align with the federal structure outlined within the Constitution.

Concerns Over Constitutional Interpretation

Divan expressed that the use of Article 32 in this context could undermine the federal structure, which is a core component of the Constitution. He voiced concerns that allowing a central agency like the ED to invoke Article 32 against a State would bypass the established constitutional processes governing disputes between the two entities. Moreover, Divan articulated that the ED, lacking independent legal personality, does not possess the standing to bring proceedings before the Court in its own name.

Fundamental Rights and Jurisdictional Disputes

Further, he highlighted that petitions under Article 32 require a breach of fundamental rights, which cannot be claimed by a department of the Union government against another constitutional entity. Divan noted that when states confront the Union, the Constitution offers mechanisms for dispute resolution that cannot be sidestepped by the invocation of Article 32. He urged that the complexities of this matter warrant examination by a Constitution Bench, as recognized by Article 145 of the Constitution of India, which stipulates that matters involving substantial constitutional interpretation require a minimum of five judges.

Ongoing Court Hearings and Developments

As the hearing began, the court addressed the ED’s allegations regarding obstruction from the West Bengal State and Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee during its search operations at I-PAC. The State sought additional time to respond to the ED’s recent rejoinder affidavit, stating that it extends beyond the original scope of the pleadings. However, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta contested this request, arguing that the State had not presented sufficient grounds for delaying the proceedings. The Court ultimately chose not to postpone the matter and instructed the State to continue with its arguments.

Previous Court Decisions and Respondents

In prior proceedings, the Court had issued summons to West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee and senior officials from the State administration, including police officers, requesting their responses to the ED’s assertions. Additionally, the Court placed a hold on the FIR filed by the West Bengal Police against ED officials who had conducted the search. The State government was also directed to preserve relevant CCTV footage from I-PAC and surrounding areas for further examination.

State’s Challenge to ED’s Petition

The apex court had rejected a claim from the West Bengal government asserting that the issue should be addressed by the Calcutta High Court, determining that broader constitutional questions were implicated that necessitated Supreme Court involvement. In response, Chief Minister Banerjee has contested the appropriateness of the ED’s petition under Article 32, arguing that the Supreme Court’s writ jurisdiction is confined to protecting fundamental rights and does not encompass alleged statutory violations or disputes over contested facts.

Banerjee further accused the ED of attempting to choose a more favorable forum, pointing out that an identical petition had been filed with the Calcutta High Court earlier in January before proceeding to the Supreme Court. The hearing is still ongoing as both sides present their arguments.

Long or Short, get news the way you like. No ads. No redirections. Download Newspin and Stay Alert, The CSR Journal Mobile app, for fast, crisp, clean updates!

App Store –  https://apps.apple.com/in/app/newspin/id6746449540 

Google Play Store – https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.inventifweb.newspin&pcampaignid=web_share