'Extra Ordinary Situation In Bengal' : Supreme Court Refers To Judges' Gherao, Asks How ED Can Avail Regular Remedies Against CM

Pointing to the recent incident where judicial officers were gheraoed while performing official SIR duties in West Bengal, the Supreme Court today questioned the State's contention that the Enforcement Directorate should be relegated to ordinary statutory remedies for alleged obstruction of its search at I-PAC office by CM Mamata Banerjee.

“This is an extraordinary situation. Before the other bench the SIR in under debate. We have seen the situation that several judicial officers have been kept hostage. And now you want that the petitioner(ED) should go to the magistrate. We cannot shut our eyes from the reality. As a Counsel you may argue abstract legal principles before us, but we cannot lose sight of the practical situation which is occurring and which is present in the state”, Justice Mishra said.

A bench of Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice N V Anjaria was hearing the writ petition filed by the ED seeking registration of a CBI FIR against Banerjee and State police officials for allegedly obstructing its search at the office of I-PAC, the political consultant of the Trinamool Congress. Writ petitions have also been filed by ED officers challenging FIRs registered against them by the West Bengal Police.

The State has raised a preliminary objection to the maintainability of these petitions under Article 32 of the Constitution.

Today, Senior Advocate Menaka Guruswamy argued that the dispute is between the Union and the State and should be brought as a suit under Article 131.

The Court expressed disagreement with this position, observing that when a sitting Chief Minister allegedly interferes with an ongoing investigation, it cannot be reduced to a dispute between the State and the Union.

Addressing this observation, Senior Advocate Sidharth Luthra argued that even if ED officers claim obstruction, the law provides a complete mechanism. Relying on the judgment in Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P. and Ors., he submitted that an aggrieved person must first approach the police under Section 154(3) and thereafter the Magistrate under Section 156(3), who can direct registration of an FIR and monitor investigation. He said this system is “tried and tested since 1860” and continues under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

The Court responded by highlighting the recent incident in which judicial officers appointed by for Special Intensive Revision duty in West Bengal were Gheraoed and prevented from performing their duties. The bench led by the Chief Justice of India had taken suo motu cognizance of the issue.

,In the previous hearing as well, the Court had questioned whether the ED can be expected to seek a remedy from the State government when the allegations are against the State machinery itself.

Today, Justice Mishra said that while counsel may argue abstract legal principles, the Court cannot ignore the practical situation in the state. He stressed that the case is an extraordinary litigation, and the court cannot ignore the present socio-political realities.

“Don't compel us to make observations. Tomorrow it will be reported and then you will say court has made observations in the midst of elections. I am repeatedly saying this is not only a litigation between Ram versus Shyam. This is an extraordinary litigation where the contours are totally different. We always say that the constitution is an organic document. Every new situation will throw and pose new questions to the court and the court has to answer the questions keeping in view the present socio-political realities”, Justice Mishra said.

Luthra, in response, maintained that the law must apply uniformly and cannot depend on the identity of the accused. He submitted that if an offence of obstruction is alleged, the statutory framework provides for the procedure to address that, and the nature of the offender becomes relevant at a later stage.

“It cannot be that show me the individual and I will show you the law. That cannot be the situation as your lord ships repeatedly remind us. The law has to be consistent. That's what your lordships do day in day out. As I said some of us will walk away happily some of us will walk away less happily but we will all walk away that the law has been applied”, he said.

Case no. – W.P.(Crl.) No. 16/2026

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