SC to Didi on I-PAC case: How can ED move state authority with complaint against CM?

NEW DELHI: Supreme Court on Tuesday asked the West Bengal govt how a central agency can approach a state authority headed by the CM when its complaint is against the CM herself. The court put the question to CM Mamata Banerjee's counsel Kapil Sibal when he argued that Enforcement Directorate cannot petition SC over alleged violation of its fundamental rights and should instead resort to statutory remedies, like lodging FIR under BNS.

Sibal told a bench of Justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and N V Anjaria that the allegation levelled by ED amounts to violation of statutory rights for which a police complaint could be filed, and violation of statutory rights is not a violation of fundamental rights to justify a writ petition.




"If the CM barges into an ED investigation, your idea of remedy for ED is to go to the state govt which is headed by the CM and inform them about it and seek remedy," the bench asked Sibal while hearing petitions filed by ED and its officers against Bengal govt, CM, Kolkata Police commissioner and other state officials for not allowing it to discharge duties while carrying out raids in Kolkata in Jan, including at political consultancy firm I-PAC's office, in connection with a money laundering probe linked to the coal 'scam' case.

The senior advocate, however, said the bench was wrongly assuming that the CM has committed an offence when the matter was still to be investigated. He said govt officials acting under the statutory provision cannot invoke fundamental rights in the event of obstruction in discharge of duties and there are statutory remedies for it. He said ED and its officials filed writ petitions without alleging which specific fundamental rights of theirs was breached.

"If Enforcement Directorate is investigating (a case) under PMLA (Prevention of Money Laundering Act) and some other offence has come to the notice of its officers then the agency concerned, in this case state govt, should be informed as per section 66 of PMLA," Sibal added.

The bench, however, said the alleged second charge - not allowing Enforcement Directorate to conduct raid - was separate from the PMLA case as the offence was committed against ED officials.

"The person who filed the writ petition has not claimed any fundamental right. Not only that, assuming he has a fundamental right, then the petition must state which fundamental right has been violated... There is a statutory remedy for it and that statutory remedy has to be followed. If an offence is committed within the jurisdiction of a particular police station in a particular state then the investigation has to be done by the state," Sibal argued.

Senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, for Bengal DGP, told SC that question of maintainability of the petition should be adjudicated by a larger bench as important questions of law are involved.
Select The Times of India as your preferred source on Google Search