ED v West Bengal & Mamata Banerjee Over IPAC Raid : Live Updates From Supreme Court
The Supreme Court is hearing the writ petition filed by the Enforcement Directorate against the State of West Bengal over the interference by Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee with the ED's raid of the office of the I-PAC, the political consultant of the Trinamool Congress.
A bench comprising Justice Pankaj Mishra and Justice NV Anjaria is hearing the matter.
In January, the Court issued notice on ED's plea and stayed further proceedings in the West Bengal FIRs lodged against the ED officials, observing that the matter raised a serious issue which required examination to avoid a possible “situation of lawlessness” in the state. The Court also directed the state to preserve CCTV footage and other electronic material relating to the January 8 search.
Follow this page for live updates from the hearing.
Divan: if the investigating officers are going to be given authority to draft and file a writ petition, there is a considerable possibility of danger not just of burdening of court but a danger to the federal structure.
Divan: if each of these departments are entitled to sue then apart from 32 it's a very small step to article 226 and one state against some jurisdictional officer of another state.
Divan: In West Bengal the CID, the Vigilance Commission, ACB, also do not have power to sue. Keep the central government aside for a moment. We have situations where people who cross over from one state to the other for shelter. Jurisdiction in States under federal structure is territorially limited.
Divan on the question of whether if any of the authorities like police who can investigate have been conferred right to sue: CBI does not have the power under the DSPE act. The Narcotics Control Bureau under MHA does not have a power to sue. The Director of Revenue Intelligence established under an executive order also does not have the power. The SFIO under the MCA also does not have any power to sue.
Divan: the second layer of the argument is that if you are neither are juristic entity or natural person. I have been using body corporate because the sections say body corporate but the concept is you have to have a separate juristic entity.
Divan: these are all Central authorities. Similar list can be made for various state governments.
Bench: the question is if being or not being a body corporate is not the test to consider the test of maintainability of Article 32 petition, should this argument detain us for long?
Divan: as far is body corporate with right to sue is concerned you find it under the Competition Act, you find it under the TRAI act you find it under the IRDAI Act you find it under the UIDAI Act.
Divan: narcotics control bureau under ndps has no power to sue.
Bench: So as SEBI is body corporate can it maintain Article 32 petition?
Divan: I am for the State of West Bengal who is the party here.
Bench: We asked since you gave example of SEBI.
Bench: any prosecuting or an investigating authority or agency has been given the character of body corporate?
Divan: We will check that out. Central Bureau of Investigation has no power to sue.
J Mishra: Yet they sue sometimes.
Divan: they don't sue under Article 32. It doesn't file original suit as far as I know.
Divan: you may have certain planning authorities or you may have authority for the purpose of promotion of a particular industrial development in a state. That body or the board for example is not a regulatory authority. It is a promotional body. So you have different types.