State Launches Fierce Attack on ED in Supreme Court Over I-PAC Case; Singhvi Questions Agency's Independent Existence.

Sanchita Chatterjee, BS News Agency: As the political temperature rises in election-bound West Bengal (ahead of the 2026 Assembly polls), a parallel drama is unfolding in New Delhi, where the Supreme Court is witnessing intense tension surrounding the I-PAC case. In this legal battle pitting the ED against the State Government, questions regarding the Constitution, the powers of the State, and the jurisdiction of investigative agencies repeatedly took center stage on Wednesday. Allegations of "unlawful interference" in the name of investigation are being raised in court. The controversy originated on January 8, when the ED, while investigating a coal smuggling case, conducted searches at the residence and office of I-PAC chief Pratik Jain. The central agency alleged that Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee herself, accompanied by over 100 police personnel, obstructed the search operation and removed crucial evidence, including laptops and mobile phones. It was against this alleged "interference" that the ED had approached the apex court.
Singhvi and Sibal Execute a Counter-Move in the Apex Court. Arguing on behalf of the State's former Director General of Police (DGP) today, senior counsel Abhishek Manu Singhvi directly challenged the very existence of the ED. He asserted, "The ED is a powerful State institution. The ED cannot claim that it requires the protection of the State. An ED officer possesses no independent existence or identity of their own; they are merely individuals discharging duties under the law." He further contended that while the ED possesses the authority to conduct investigations, this cannot be construed as a "fundamental right." Consequently, the question of any violation of Articles 14, 21, or 22 does not arise. Senior counsel Kapil Sibal also raised the pertinent question: how can a government agency claim personal fundamental rights?
Centre Fires Back in Court. The Centre, however, was unwilling to let these arguments put forth by the State hold water. Launching a counter-attack, Additional Solicitor General Tushar Mehta argued, "Simply because the facts of the case do not favor them, they are now citing various past precedents in an attempt to have the case dismissed. Why are they not addressing the actual events that transpired on that specific day?" On the other hand, Advocate Menaka Guruswamy questioned the maintainability of this case, citing the debates of the Constituent Assembly from 1948. All in all, the legal battle reached a critical juncture in the Supreme Court on Wednesday.
The State argued that the ED's authority to conduct investigations constitutes a 'power,' but not a 'fundamental right.' Conversely, the ED alleged that the Chief Minister herself had obstructed the investigation—an act described as unprecedented. The Court's observation thus far echoes a question it had raised earlier: if the Chief Minister herself intervenes in the investigation, where is the ED to turn? It has been reported that the hearing of this case is set to resume after the lunch recess.
The first phase of voting in the State is scheduled for tomorrow. Needless to say, this legal standoff in Delhi will provide additional political oxygen to the ongoing political battle ahead of the polls.
Tags: