The Supreme Court on Thursday asked the Enforcement Directorate by implication whether it was seeking President’s rule in Bengal, prompting the central agency to clarify that it wasn’t.
“We hope that you are not hinting at the breakdown of constitutional machinery (in Bengal) because that is a very large concern,” Justice N.V. Anjaria, the second judge on a bench headed by Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra, asked.
“We hope you are not doing that because you are very strenuously arguing
about the extensive breach of law.”
Solicitor-general Tushar Mehta, representing the agency, quickly answered: “ED can never argue that (for President’s rule). It is not in my contemplation. There is nothing up my sleeve.”
The court was hearing an ED petition seeking FIRs against chief minister Mamata Banerjee, the then Bengal and Calcutta police chiefs and other officials for allegedly obstructing the agency’s raid on the Calcutta premises of Trinamool poll consultant I-PAC in January.
Mehta said he was not claiming a breakdown of the constitutional machinery in Bengal (which can lead to the imposition of President’s rule under Article 356).
“Rather, there was a complete breach of law and order, which is in violation of my (ED officials’) right under Articles 14 and 21 (the rights to equality and to life and personal liberty),” he said.
“According to me, wherever and whenever the State fails to perform its duty, the courts can step in due to breach of ‘rule of law’.”
Mehta alleged Mamata had barged into the I-PAC premises with the then Bengal DGP, then Calcutta police commissioner and other officials during an ED raid and taken away incriminating documents, including computer discs. The ED has charged them with theft, dacoity and other offences.
The ED case has been filed under Article 32 of the Constitution, which allows every citizen to move the Supreme Court for the enforcement of their rights against violation by the State.
The Bengal government has challenged the maintainability of the petition under Article 32, arguing the ED is not a “citizen” and its only option is to invoke Article 131, which empowers the top court to deal with Centre-state and state-state disputes.
“The ED officers, who are also citizens of India (and were) discharging their statutory functions, are seeking protection of their fundamental rights,” Mehta argued.
He argued that even the Bengal government had earlier filed several petitions under Article 32.
He said that since the chief minister and other top police officers were the accused, no action would have been taken if the ED had got the FIRs registered at the local police station.
The bench, however, said there was an “inherent danger if we keep entertaining such petitions. This court will be flooded with Article 32 petitions, not by individuals but by different state governments.”
Mehta said such petitions should be discouraged, prompting the bench to ask: “So, should we dismiss this (ED’s petition)?”
Mehta replied that the ED officers had filed the petition under Article 32 in their individual capacities, and the matter should therefore be decided on a “fact-to-fact basis”.
Arguments will continue.
On Thursday, Mehta had a verbal duel with senior advocate Menaka Guruswamy, representing some Bengal police officers inthe case.
Guruswamy told the bench that one of the political parties (an allusion to the BJP) was using the Supreme Court proceedings in connection the ongoing Bengalelections.
During the hearing, Mehta recalled Mamata’s 2019 dharna to prevent the CBI questioning of then Calcutta police commissioner Rajeev Kumar, who is now a Trinamool Rajya Sabha member.
He also cited the gherao of judicial officers, engaged in SIR duties, in Malda and the police’s alleged failure to act until the high court chief justice intervened.
