NEW DELHI — The Supreme Court made sharp oral observations on Wednesday in a case involving West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee's alleged interference in an Enforcement Directorate (ED) investigation, remarking that such conduct puts democracy "in peril."
A bench of Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice N V Anjaria was hearing petitions filed by the ED seeking registration of a CBI FIR against Banerjee and senior West Bengal Police officials over alleged obstruction during search operations at the Kolkata office of political consultancy firm I-PAC.
The bench was unconvinced by arguments that the matter should be treated as a dispute between the state and the Union government.
"Any Chief Minister of any State walks in the midst of an inquiry or an investigation… you see, make the democracy in peril and then argue that it's a dispute essentially between the State and Centre?" Justice Mishra's bench observed orally.
The court went further, drawing a clear distinction between institutional conflict and individual conduct. "This is not per se a dispute between the State and the Union. 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," it said.
Also Read: Mamata Banerjee’s career based on lies, she has destroyed Bengal’s culture: JP Nadda
Senior advocate Meneka Guruswamy, appearing for state police officials, questioned whether the ED's petition was maintainable under Article 32, arguing that writ petitions are available only to individuals — not government departments — and that the matter should instead be pursued under Article 131 as an inter-governmental dispute. She also described the case as raising a "unique proposition of law."
The bench was unmoved, observing that the presence of a legal question alone does not justify referral to a larger bench. "In every petition, there will be some question of law. That does not mean every Article 32 petition is referred to a five-judge bench," it said.
Senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, appearing for the West Bengal government, contended that the ED cannot seek relief under Article 32 on grounds of fundamental rights violation.
In her counter-affidavit, Banerjee denied all allegations of interference. She stated that her presence at the I-PAC office in Bidhannagar and at Pratik Jain's Loudon Street residence on January 8, 2026 was solely to recover confidential Trinamool Congress data that she said was being accessed during the searches.
She maintained that the data was "vitally linked to the AITC's strategy for the upcoming Legislative Assembly election," and that ED officials on site did not object to her retrieving certain devices and physical files.
The affidavit also alleged that the ED acted with mala fide intent, pointing to the timing of the searches — conducted in the run-up to the 2026 West Bengal Assembly elections and after what she described as a prolonged period of inaction. It further alleged that the ED failed to produce audio or video recordings of the searches, which the affidavit claimed raised a "strong presumption" of clandestine conduct aimed at accessing sensitive political data.
The Supreme Court had on January 15 stayed FIRs registered by the West Bengal Police against ED officials in connection with the searches, and directed the preservation of CCTV footage and digital recordings from the searched premises and surrounding areas.
The ED has sought directions for registration of FIRs and transfer of the investigation to the CBI. The matter continues to be heard.