The Supreme Court on Wednesday (March 18) told lawyers representing the West Bengal government in the I-PAC raid case that they “cannot dictate” when a matter should be heard. The remarks came during the hearing of a petition filed by the Enforcement Directorate (ED), which has alleged interference by Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee and state officials in its investigation into political consultancy firm I-PAC. The raids were conducted at the office of political consultancy firm I-PAC on January 8 as part of a money laundering probe.
The Bengal government sought additional time to respond to the ED’s counter-affidavit, with senior advocate Shyam Divan arguing that the agency had raised new allegations requiring a detailed reply. Senior advocate Menaka Guruswamy also supported the request, saying the state should be allowed to respond to fresh claims.
Related News |
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the ED, opposed the plea, calling it a delaying tactic. He pointed out that the affidavit was filed on February 19 and said the matter was being deliberately stalled. He also termed it “shocking” that a Chief Minister would interfere in an ongoing investigation by a central agency.
The case marks a major flashpoint in the ongoing tussle between central investigative agencies and the TMC-ruled West Bengal government ahead of the local assembly elections in the state.
Related News |
‘Gross Abuse’ of Power
The ED has alleged that Mamata Banerjee “illegally barged” into the I-PAC office during the raids with her Z-plus security and interfered with the proceedings, even retrieving material from the premises, which ED termed as “gross and blatant abuse” of power.
Making a comment on this, SC bench said, “Here is a situation where according to them (ED) a CM unusually barges in where a probe is on totally uncontrolled..in such a situation you say they(ED) can’t move under Art 32(SC) nor under Art 226 (HC)…This is not a happy situation we decide issues when a new situation emerges. Some day some other Chief Minister may enter some other office ..then who will decide?”
