NEW DELHI: Terming the clash between Enforcement Directorate (ED) and West Bengal CM Mamata Banerjee as very serious, with wider implications, Supreme Court Thursday issued notice to the CM and state officials on the central agency’s plea to initiate action against them for preventing it from discharging its duty in the alleged coal scam case.
The court granted them two weeks to file responses and stayed the FIR registered by the West Bengal police against ED officials.“We are of the prima facie opinion that the present petition has raised a serious issue related to the investigation by ED or other central agencies and its interference by state agencies,” a bench of Justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and Vipul M Pancholi said. “According to us, for furtherance of rule of law in the country, and to allow each organ to function independently, it is necessary to examine the issue so that the offenders are not allowed to be protected under the shield of the law enforcement agencies of a particular state,” the bench said.
The same situation could crop up in other states if these issues remained undecided, it said.
The outcome of this litigation would assume significance as clashes between Centre and opposition-governed states have become frequent, with the state blaming Centre for using its agencies, particularly CBI and ED, for political purposes and the Centre accusing the states for protecting their corrupt ministers and officials by not allowing its probe agency to function.
It said, “The larger questions involved in the present manner, which if allowed to remain undecided, would further worsen the situation and there will be a situation of lawlessness prevailing in one or the other state, considering that different political outfits are governing different places.” “True that any central agency does not have any power to interfere with election work of any party. But if central agency is bona fide investigating any serious offence, the question arises whether in the guise of taking shield of party activities, agencies can be restricted from carrying out duties,” the SC said.The bench, at the outset, raised the question of maintainability of Enforcement Directorate’s writ petition. But it made up its mind to examine the petition after solicitor general Tushar Mehta explained how the incident took place and the manner in which Calcutta high court was prevented from hearing its plea on the first date. “This is serious and we have to examine it,” the bench said after SG Mehta’s argument.Mehta, also flanked by additional solicitors general S V Raju and Vikramajit Banerjee, told SC that the CM, along with senior state police officials, including the DGP, barged into the premises where ED was conducting its raid in an illegal coal mining ‘scam’ and took away evidence.
He said the CM and state officials staged a dharna and prevented the agency from discharging its duty. “If no action is taken then the central force would get demoralised.
.. Let erring officers be put on suspension to set an example that they cannot do dharna and block investigation,” the SG said.Mehta informed the bench that this was not the first time that such an incident had taken place, and earlier, CBI officers were arrested by Bengal police after they went to question the then Kolkata police commissioner.ED’s plea was strongly objected to by senior advocates Kapil Sibal, Abhishek Manu Singhvi and Shyam Diwan, appearing for the CM, the state and its officials, respectively. They submitted that ED’s action was meant to disrupt the upcoming West Bengal assembly elections.Questioning the motive behind the raid of I-PAC premises, a political consultant of the Mamata-led TMC, Sibal, appearing for her, said, “The first question which arises is why was there a need to go there in the midst of an election? The last statement in the coal mining scam was recorded in Feb 2024.
What were they doing in 2024 and 2025, and why are they so keen in the midst of elections in 2026? If you get hold of the information, how will we fight the elections? This is why the party chairperson (Mamata) has the right to go there.
It is the property of the party…It is a completely mala fide exercise by ED to disturb the election process by gathering confidential information.”Singhvi submitted that ED, which first moved the HC, is resorting to “forum shopping” by filing a case in SC.
He said the issue could be examined in HC. As the bench raised the issue of commotion created in the high court on first hearing on Jan 9, Singhvi said emotions were running high on the first day but the hearing went on very smoothly on Wednesday. He further submitted that the entire search was done peacefully as as per the panchnama, which is diametrically opposite the contention raised in the petition.
He said local police was initially in dark as the search operations started at 6am, and the email communication was sent only at 11.30am.The bench, after hearing both the sides, passed an order and also stayed FIR lodged by the state against ED officials and directed the police to preserve CCTV footage and other evidence.
