New Delhi: Defending its right to file an Article 32 writ petition in the I-PAC raids case before the Supreme Court, the Enforcement Directorate (ED) Thursday said the dispute is not a Centre-state one, but has more to do with citizens’ fundamental right to law and order.
In a joint rejoinder—submitted in response to a counter filed by Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee and her West Bengal government to its petition—the anti-money laundering agency said it has approached the top court in the capacity of parens patriae, as guardian of the fundamental rights of the country’s citizens.
The ED moved the top court in January, soon after its team faced stiff protests by Trinamool Congress (TMC) workers when it raided the office of political consultancy firm Indian Political Action Committee (I-PAC) and the Kolkata house of its head Pratik Jain. The search was part of its investigation in connection with a 2020 CBI probe into alleged illegal coal mining in West Bengal’s Eastern Coalfields Ltd’s mines in Kunustoria and Kajora.
The agency, in its writ petition, accused state functionaries of “blatant abuse of power” and commission of offences.
West Bengal’s stand was that the ED’s petition under Article 32—which guarantees one the right to directly approach the Supreme Court for enforcement of fundamental rights—is not maintainable and that it should be heard under Article 131, which gives the apex court exclusive jurisdiction over Centre-state disputes.
As a central government agency, the ED should have invoked this Article 131 jurisdiction to seek relief, the state had told the court.
As per the CBI’s case, nearly Rs 10 crore in proceeds of crime were routed through hawala channels to I-PAC—the firm hired by the TMC during the 2022 Goa assembly elections.
Mamata, who had rushed to the I-PAC chief’s home amid the ED’s January raids, had accused the ED of raiding I-PAC at the behest of the BJP-led Centre, claiming it was aimed at gathering sensitive political data ahead of crucial assembly elections likely to witness a direct fight between TMC and BJP.
Accusing the state police of protecting a mob that attacked its officers, the ED had moved the Supreme Court demanding a CBI probe and a stay on all criminal proceedings in cases filed against its officers by the West Bengal Police.
The ED had approached the Calcutta High Court for relief. However, the bench couldn’t proceed with the hearing owing to a large gathering comprising TMC workers in the courtroom.
On 15 January, the top court stayed the probe into the FIRs registered in Kolkata against ED officers and called it a “serious issue”.
“Adherence of rule of law in the country and to allow each organ to function independently, it is necessary to examine the issue so that the offenders are not allowed to be protected under the shield of law enforcing agencies of a particular state,” the bench had said in its interim order, addressing the Bengal government’s concern that the ED’s petition was not maintainable under Article 32.
Also Read: After Mamata stunt in Bengal, ED faces Jharkhand chapter as cops gherao its Ranchi office
‘Victim is the public’
In its rejoinder, the ED denied it conducted raids in connection with I-PAC’s engagement as TMC’s election strategist.
Maintaining that the Supreme Court, through its 15 January interim order, had virtually answered West Bengal’s objection to the ED’s petition on the ground of maintainability, the agency’s rejoinder claimed that it was before the apex court to “canvass the interests and Fundamental Right of general public who have the right to public order, rule of law, which flows from Article 14 (promising equality before law and equal protection of law)”.
Even ED officers and functionaries have a fundamental right to personal liberty and to move freely for the purposes of discharging their duties, it said.
The ED, the rejoinder said, was carrying out its task under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), adding that non-implementation of the law can “have adverse consequences on the society”.
Besides, obstruction to a statutory authority lawfully implementing the provisions of the PMLA is a violation of the rule of law and consequently the violation of the fundamental rights of a citizen, it further said.
In the current case, the ED added, the victim is the public as the assets exploited are natural resources, owned by the public. Therefore, to uphold the public’s fundamental right to rule of law, it was necessary to have a fair investigation into the offence, ED said while reiterating a CBI probe into the violence faced by its officers in Kolkata.
Use of wrongful force and intimidation was also a violation of their officers’ fundamental rights, the ED submitted. That state machinery was used to interdict ED was established from Mamata Banerjee’s affidavit filed in the top court to its petition, argued the agency.
It referred to paragraphs of her affidavit where Mamata, with her Z-plus security personnel, admitted to having entered the premises where a search was being conducted by the ED. There, she “forcibly took possession of documents and digital devices from the search premises”, the agency said in its affidavit.
Moreover, there was no statutory obligation on the ED to inform the state police before carrying out a search, said the agency, while accusing the West Bengal government of abusing its legal authority and colluding with police to obstruct ED’s officers. Yet, the ED had intimated the local police before conducting the searches, it added.
“Every litigant has a right to fair hearing,” the ED said, maintaining that the use of local influence had created a hostile and unconducive environment in Kolkata and the high court there.
It sought a holistic, comprehensive investigation in a coordinated manner.
(Edited by Gitanjali Das)
Also Read: ED case against Mamata’s strategist I-PAC—‘Rs 20 cr coal scam proceeds, Bengal to Goa via hawala’