Kolkata I-PAC raids case: ED not a ‘person’ to claim violation of fundamental rights by a State, Bengal argues in SC

Supreme Court questions West Bengal's claim that ED lacks rights to challenge obstruction during I-PAC raids by Chief Minister.

The Supreme Court asked the West Bengal government on Wednesday (March 18, 2026) if the Directorate of Enforcement (ED) was expected to merely “look and watch” when Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee “barged” in and obstructed ongoing raids at the offices of the political consultancy firm I-PAC at Kolkata in January.

The remark from Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra, heading a Bench, was in response to the poll-bound State’s submissions that the ED was neither a “body corporate” nor a “legal or natural person” to approach the apex court under Article 32 of the Constitution claiming violation of its “fundamental rights”. West Bengal, represented by senior advocate Shyam Divan, raised preliminary objections to the maintainability of the ED’s writ petition filed under Article 32, seeking a Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) probe against Ms. Banerjee and the senior police officers who accompanied her.

Also Read | I-PAC raids case: Supreme Court to decide if ED is ‘weaponised’ or ‘terrorised’

“If a Chief Minister, according to the ED, barges in and obstructs statutory work, is it that the ED cannot move either this court under Article 32 or the High Court under Article 226. So, will the ED be left remediless? This (Ms. Banerjee’s alleged actions) is an unusual situation, an unhappy situation. This has not happened before,” Justice Mishra addressed the State government.

The Bench asked what would be the situation if other Chief Ministers, taking the cue from Ms. Banerjee, started emulating her. “The law has to evolve according to new situations. There cannot be a vacuum. It cannot be that there is no remedy in law to a situation,” Justice Mishra observed.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, for the ED, interjected to point out that the “Chief Minister, who is the head of the government in the State, hindered a lawful ongoing investigation being conducted in the larger public interest”. The ED has maintained that the raids were part of an investigation into a ₹2,742-crore coal smuggling case.