ED v Mamata Banerjee : Live Updates From Supreme Court Hearing

Sibal: in this particular case the directorate of enforcement is not even a person. 19 doesn't apply, 20 doesn't apply,

Bench: They are saying Rule of Law is violated.

Sibal: rule of law is reflected in what? Articles 14, 15, 16, 19 they are all part of rule of law. The question is who can enforce it. 19 can only be enforced by citizen.

Sibal: even if Robin Bansal comes as himself and files a writ petition, only his specific case can be considered not violation of anyone else's fundamental rights

J Mishra: when you give SCCOnline citation it takes us a lot of time to just find the page number. SCC Online publishers should print the page number in some different place

Sibal: 9 judges answered the question on the enforcement of the fundamental right of the State Trading Corporation saying that there is no such thing.

Sibal: both are missing.

Sibal cites 9 judge bench judgement in State Trading Corporation v. Commercial Tax Officer

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1799890/

Sibal: the person who filed the writ petition has not claimed any fundamental right. Not only that, assuming he has a fundamental right, then the petition must state which fundamental right has been violated.

ASG SV Raju: He may say that he was not present but I will show actually what really was the position.

J Mishra: He may be a shadow officer.

Sibal: what he has done in authorise other offices to go there.

Bench: so he (Deputy Director Robin Bansal) was not there on the spot?

Sibal: No

Sibal draws the court's attention to the cause title of the petition: a Deputy Director mentioned in the cause title was no where on the scene. This is not a PIL. A person who moves the court under article 32 has to specifically set out which fundamental right of his has been violated.