ED v Mamata Banerjee : Live Updates From Supreme Court Hearing

Sibal: there is a statutory remedy that statutory remedy has to be followed. I am not on maintainability now. 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. Even if there is a violation of fundamental rights

Sibal: assuming the offences by ED are committed what is the fundamental right to move this quote. Let's assume a person is kidnapped. If he is released, he can't move under article 32? These offences cannot be investigated by an authority outside the police station. As per BNSS an offence committed within a particular area has under the law to be investigated by that police station.

J Mishra: There are two distinct offences while PMLA is going on PMLA officers have not unearthed or come across some other offence. The present offences are committed by some other persons against PMLA investigators

J Mishra: Section 66 PMLA may not apply. There are two distinct allegations. PMLA allegations which ED is enquiring. Then the second set of offence which the petitioners herein are alleging that has not been committed in continuation of or while the investigation of PMLA offence was undergoing.

Sibal: if ED is investigating under PMLA and some other offence has come to the notice of the officers then the concerned agency, in this case state government, should be informed as per section 66 of PMLA

Sibal: your lordships are assuming that the CM has committed offence.

J Mishra: we are not assuming anything that is the allegation. Do not mistake us. Every allegation is based on some facts, if there are no facts there is no need to be investigated. That is what thet are praying for, for CBI to investigate

J Mishra: the CM barges into an ED investigation and your idea of remedy for the ED is to go to the state government which is headed by the CM and inform them about it and seek remedy

Sibal: Further they say that the case being investigated by state police cannot be investigated by state police. This is covered by several judgements of this court. They have a remedy and they should not file an article 32 petition.

Sibal: they have made the ED as the petitioner because Central Government can only move under Article 131 and not Article 32. It doesn't matter that there is a petitioner number 2. A company shareholder is at a higher position than ED as the shareholder can file individually even if a corporate cannot enforecd a fundamental right which is only available to a citizen

Sibal: Article 22 also does not apply. And ED is a directorate, it is not even a department. In State Trading Corporation it was said that a department of Government of India cannot file writ petition and here the ED is not even a department