New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Wednesday said it would hear on May 22 the ED’s plea alleging obstruction by the then West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee and other state authorities during his inspection on January 8 at the Kolkata office of political consultancy firm I-PAC.
The matter came up for hearing before a bench of Justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and NV Anjaria.
Advocate General Tushar Mehta asked the bench to keep the case for hearing next week.
The bench noted that the case could be listed in July after partial court days.
“Let it be listed next week. That was basically argued,” the senior law official said.
The high court then posted the case on May 22.
In the recently concluded West Bengal Assembly elections, the BJP secured a historic victory with 207 seats in the 294-member House, ending the 15-year rule of the Mamata Banerjee-led TMC.
Alleging complete breakdown of law and order in West Bengal, the Enforcement Directorate on April 23 alleged in the high court that Banerjee used the state machinery to obstruct its money laundering probe against I-PAC’s Kolkata office.
The ED alleged that the then chief minister, accompanied by a large police contingent, personally intervened to stop the search and seize the evidence collected by the federal agency’s officers.
While hearing arguments on the matter on April 22, the apex court observed that democracy is put at risk if a prime minister interferes in an inquiry.
The ED is seeking a direction to transfer the probe into the alleged obstruction and “vindictive” FIRs to the CBI, saying an independent agency is required to probe the conduct of Banerjee and top state police officials.
The Government of West Bengal and other respondents have questioned the maintenance of the Dthe prayer of
On March 24, the high court asked the West Bengal government about its objection to the sustainability of the ED’s request.
The court had noted that several ED officers had filed petitions in their individual capacity seeking to know whether they had ceased to be citizens of India simply because they were officers of the agency.
Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for Banerjee in the case, had earlier argued that a person moving the court under Article 32 of the Constitution must specifically establish which fundamental right of his has been violated.
On January 15, the top court said the chief minister’s alleged obstruction of the ED probe was “very serious” and agreed to consider whether a state’s law enforcement agencies can interfere with any central agency’s investigation into any serious offence, as the FIR against the ED officials who raided the I-PAC remained.
The ED has alleged interference and obstruction by the state government, including by Banerjee, in its investigation and search operation at the I-PAC office and the premises of its director, Pratik Jain, in connection with an alleged coal robbery scam.
The high court, staying the FIRs filed in West Bengal against the ED officials, had also ordered the state police to preserve the CCTV footage of the raids.
It had issued notices to Banerjee, the West Bengal government, former state director general of police Rajeev Kumar and top cops on ED petitions seeking a CBI probe against them for allegedly obstructing its raids.
