The Supreme Court today orally questioned whether the Enforcement Directorate can seek a remedy from the State Government itself when the allegations of obstruction during its raid on the I-PAC office are levelled against the Chief Minister and State Police. A bench comprising Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice NV Anjaria made the observation while hearing preliminary objections raised by the State of West Bengal on the maintainability of the ED’s writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution seeking a CBI investigation into the alleged obstruction. The Court also orally remarked that individual ED officers do not cease to be citizens of India merely because they are discharging statutory duties and can therefore maintain an Article 32 petition for violation of their fundamental rights.
Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for the State of West Bengal, reiterated that the ED, being a department of the Central Government, cannot invoke Article 32 jurisdiction. He submitted that if any public officer is obstructed in the discharge of duties, the remedy lies in launching prosecution under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita for obstruction of public servant and that the State Police can investigate the matter. Justice Mishra countered by asking whether it would be appropriate for the ED to approach the State Government headed by the Chief Minister when the allegations are directly against the Chief Minister. “The CM barges into an ED investigation, and your idea of remedy for the ED is to go to the state government, which is headed by the CM and inform them about it and seek a remedy?” Justice Mishra questioned. Sibal responded that the Court should not assume that the Chief Minister has committed any offence and that if any other offence comes to light during the PMLA investigation, the State should be informed under Section 66 of the PMLA. The Court, however, observed that Section 66 of the PMLA may not apply as there are two distinct sets of allegations — the PMLA probe being conducted by the ED and the separate offences allegedly committed during the course of that investigation.
Sibal further argued that allowing the ED or its officers to invoke writ jurisdiction under Article 32 or Article 226 would open a “Pandora’s box” as investigative agencies do not have a fundamental right to investigate. He contended that when officials act under statutory provisions and face obstruction, they cannot claim violation of fundamental rights under Articles 14 or 21 since they are performing statutory duties. Justice Mishra responded that merely because the petitioners are officers of the ED at that point of time, they do not cease to become citizens of India. The Court also noted that even if one officer like Deputy Director Rohin Bansal was not physically present, he could still be a “shadow officer” and the petition by individual officers would remain maintainable. Senior Advocate Kalyan Banerjee, appearing for the Chief Minister, and Senior Advocate Dr Abhishek Manu Singhvi, appearing for the West Bengal DGP, supported the preliminary objections and suggested that the maintainability issue may require reference to a larger bench in view of Article 131 and precedents like State Trading Corporation of India (1963).
The ED has sought registration of a CBI FIR against Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee and State Police officials for allegedly obstructing its raid on the office of I-PAC, the political consultancy firm linked to the Trinamool Congress, on 8 January 2026. Following the incident, the West Bengal Police registered three FIRs against ED officials. The ED maintains that material and devices were taken away without consent, impeding its investigation. The State has opposed the petition citing pendency of similar proceedings before the Calcutta High Court and has disputed the ED’s version of events. Last week the Court had stayed further proceedings in the FIRs lodged against ED officials and directed preservation of CCTV footage. Arguments on maintainability will continue in April.
Cause Title: Directorate of Enforcement and Anr. v. State of West Bengal and Ors.
Case No.: W.P.(Crl.) No. 16/2026
Lawcutor 