Daijiworld Media Network – New Delhi

New Delhi, Apr 22: The Supreme Court on Wednesday came down heavily on West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee over her alleged intervention during an Enforcement Directorate (ED) raid at the residence of I-PAC co-founder Pratik Jain, observing that such conduct could place “democracy in peril”.

Hearing the ED’s plea seeking a CBI probe into the January incident, a bench comprising Justices PK Mishra and NV Anjaria termed the case “extraordinary”, particularly in the backdrop of the ongoing West Bengal Assembly elections.

“A chief minister cannot walk into the midst of an investigation, put democracy in peril and then say it should not be turned into a Centre-state dispute,” the bench observed, adding that such an act by an individual holding constitutional office raises serious concerns.

The controversy relates to an ED raid at Jain’s residence in connection with an alleged money laundering probe, during which the central agency has accused Banerjee of entering the premises and removing key evidence — a charge that has triggered political controversy.

The bench remarked that constitutional experts such as HM Seervai and BR Ambedkar may never have imagined a scenario where a sitting chief minister would interrupt an active investigation.

The hearing assumes significance as West Bengal heads into a two-phase Assembly election on April 23 and 29, with the ruling Trinamool Congress facing a strong challenge from the BJP.

Appearing for the West Bengal government, senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi argued that the ED, being a state agency, cannot claim violation of fundamental rights and has no independent constitutional right to investigate.

Representing Banerjee, senior advocate Menaka Guruswamy contended that the court’s writ jurisdiction is meant to protect citizens against unlawful state action and not to enable one arm of the state to invoke fundamental rights against another.

She also argued that the Centre was seeking to disturb settled constitutional principles, citing precedents including the Kesavananda Bharati case.

During the hearing, the court repeatedly questioned the implications of a chief minister intervening in an ongoing probe, underlining that the matter touches upon institutional boundaries and the rule of law.