The Bengal government on Wednesday told the Supreme Court that the Centre had “weaponised” the Enforcement Directorate against Opposition parties, prompting the central agency to accuse the Mamata Banerjee-led dispensation of “terrorising” it.

The sharp exchanges took place before a bench of Justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and K.V. Viswanathan during a brief hearing on the row over the ED raids on the Trinamool Congress’s poll consultant, I-PAC, last month.

Senior advocate Sidharth Luthra, appearing for the Bengal government, told the bench that the ED was being misused by the Centre. “They will have to justify how an agency can be weaponised like this,” he said.

The remark drew a sharp retort from additional solicitor-general S.V. Raju, representing the ED. “No, no he is wrong. The agency is not weaponised, it has been terrorised by the state (Bengal),” he said.

The top court had earlier issued notices to Bengal chief minister Mamata Banerjee, then director-general of police (DGP) Rajeev Kumar and other police officers while dealing with the ED’s petition accusing them of interfering with the agency’s probe and search operations at the Calcutta office of I-PAC and the home of its co-founder Pratik Jain in connection with an alleged coal pilferage scam.

Mamata and senior bureaucrats had gone to the sites of the raids and the chief minister had taken away files containing “sensitive information” on the party’s plans for the Assembly polls.

The ED had also sought a direction to the Union home ministry and the department of personnel and training to suspend the erring officials, including former DGP Kumar.

Solicitor-general Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Centre, on Wednesday said the ED would file a rejoinder to the counter-affidavits filed by the Bengal government and
Mamata.

“Rejoinder will be filed during the course of the day. I will also address the court on important constitutional principles. Please schedule it for another day. Mr Kapil Sibal, Dr Singhvi, with their limited understanding, will try to persuade your lordships on Article 32,” Mehta said, prompting Luthra to raise an objection. Sibal and Abhishek Manu Singhvi are also representing the Bengal government.

“I think my learned friend is a little harsh in saying limited understanding of the counsel,” Luthra said.

Mehta was referring to the Bengal government’s opposition to the petition filed by the ED under Article 32 of the Constitution. The state government has contended that Article 32 was designed for citizens to enforce their fundamental rights, not for a state agency to invoke it.

Singhvi reminded the court that it had, at the earlier hearing, said it would examine the maintainability of the petition filed by the ED under Article 32. Usually, a petition is moved under Article 131 of the Constitution in matters involving disputes between the Centre and states or one stateagainst another.

“We will hear both of you,” Justice Mishra said, posting the matter for further hearing to March 18.

Observing that “lawlessness” will prevail if it does not interfere, the top court had on January 15 issued notices to Mamata, the Bengal DGP and the Kolkata Police commissioner on the ED’s petition alleging interference and obstruction during its raids on the I-PAC premises.

The earlier bench of Justice Mishra and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi had asked Mamata and the Bengal top cops to explain their stance on the ED’s plea for a CBI probe and registration of FIRs against the chief minister and the cops for “theft, robbery, dacoity, attempt to murder and trespass”.

Apart from Mamata, the ED has sought registration of FIRs against the Bengal DGP, Kolkata Police commissioner Manoj Kumar Verma and deputy commissioner of police (south) Priyabrata Roy.

The bench had stayed the FIRs registered by the Bengal government against the ED officials. It had also directed the state government to ensure preservation of the CCTV footage of the premises searched by the ED on January 8.

Subsequently, Mamata and the state government had, in separate but identical responses, argued that the ED had conducted the searches without proper authorisation and stolen several files from the I-PAC premises. They had also accused the ED officials of behaving in a “high-handed manner”.