Not Arguing That There's Breakdown Of Constitutional Machinery In West Bengal : ED Tells Supreme Court

The Enforcement Directorate told the Supreme Court on Thursday (April 23) that it was not arguing that there was a complete breakdown of constitutional machinery in the State of West Bengal.

The Solicitor General clarified that the ED's argument was that there was a breach of the rule of law in the I-PAC case, and it should not be understood as a failure of constitutional machinery.

The Court commented that an argument of breakdown of constitutional machinery will have "far-reaching consequences", as it can lead to Presidential rule.

The ED has approached the Supreme Court by filing writ petitions under Article 32 of the Constitution, seeking an investigation by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) against Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee and State police officials for allegedly obstructing the ED's raid of the office of I-PAC, the political consultant of the All India Trinamool Congress party.

A bench comprising Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice NV Anjaria is hearing the preliminary issue regarding the maintainability of the ED's arguments. Responding to the arguments raised by the State opposing the maintainability of ED's petition, Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta argued that the fundamental rights of the ED officers were violated by the extraordinary acts of the CM and the State officials interfering with the raid of I-PAC.

During the arguments, the SG argued that there was a "complete breach of law and order" in the State, and the Chief Minister's act was not an isolated one as she has indulged in similar acts in the past as well. He submitted that when the CBI had earlier attempted in 2019 to question the then Kolkata Police Commissioner, the CM had staged a dharna infornt of the CBI's office. The SG added that when some Trinamool Congress members were arrested in 2021 in the Narada case, the CM had led a similar public demonstration, and over 5000 party supporters had surrounded the CBI Special Court, creating an intimidating situation for the judge.

He also referred to the recent incident in Malda district, where a mob gheraoed the judicial officers performing SIR adjudication duties.

At this juncture, Justice Anjaria asked if the ED was arguing that there was a complete breakdown of constitutional machinery in the State. Justice Anjaria hinted that it can be an extreme position, because as per Article 356, breakdown of constitutional machinery is a ground to impose Presidential Rule in a State.

"You are very seriously arguing about the extensive breach of law. It has very very very far-reaching overtones. We hope that you are not hinting at the breakdown of Constitutional Machinery because that's a very larger concern." Justice Anjarai asked.

"That's a larger concern," SG replied.

"We hope that you are not driving at that," Justice Anjaraia said.

"ED can never argue that. I will answer it in that fashion. ED cannot argue that. And I am for officials and the institution. Because this position has been since many years. What is in your lordship's mind could have happened earlier," SG replied.

" We don't know. We are only asking that whether..." Justice Anjaria stated.

"No, ED cannot answer that and it's not in my contemplation. There is nothing up the sleeve," SG clarified.

"There is no suggestion. We are asking in context of the controversy arising," Justice Anjaria observed.

"Whatever your lordship decides is not going to be used for a purpose other than what is projected in the petition. There is nothing up the sleeve. Let me be very candid and clear about it. It's not that I am doing something..." SG clarified further.

"The question is in relation to exercise of power under 32," Justice Mishra posted.

"32. That's the limited point. I am answering rule of law because rule of law is connected to Article 14, which gives me a locus to file 32. That's the purpose for which I'm using the word 'rule of law' not 'breakdown of constitutional machinery'," SG clarified.

Mehta submitted that when the CM and the top police officials are involved, and when the State police has filed FIR against the ED, the ED cannot be expected to approach the very same State Police for relief.

"Now the question is, can I go file an FIR there where I am myself facing an FIR. That investigate the role of CM, the DGP and the police commissioner, the DCP and 100s of policemen? I cannot. They already filed an affidavit giving themselves the clean chit," SG said.

"That's why an independent neutral agency under your lordships supervision will have to go into it. This is not a fight between A v. B. This is the fight where the central investigating agency is investigating with proper documentation and the political executive supported by the highest echelons of the police department comes and takes away the incriminating material on the ground that IPAC is also our political advisor and you wanted some secret documents from IPAC regarding our political party," SG Mehta added.

The SG stressed that instead of assisting the ED, the Chief Minister had actively caused obstruction of the investigation. "Political executive using state machinery and the rule of law warrants immediate interference by constitutional courts," he said. The obstruction of the ED investigation has affected the rights of the public at large as well, the SG stressed, contending that the ED can maintain the writ petition on behalf of the public as well.

During yesterday's hearing, the Court had orally commented that there was an "extra-ordinary situation in West Bengal". The Court had also commented that when a Chief Minister walks into the middle of an ongoing ED raid, it cannot be characterised as a dispute between the Union and the State.

The argumetns are ongoing. Live updates can be followed here.

Case no. – W.P.(Crl.) No. 16/2026

Case Title – Directorate of Enforcement and Anr. v. State of West Bengal and Ors.