Major blow to Mamata! SC stays FIRs, flags state meddling in central probe as ‘serious issue’

The top court bench of Justices Prashant Mishra and Vipul Pancholi said it is of the prima facie view that the petition has raised "a serious issue" related to a central probe agency's investigation and interference by state agencies.

The court said this hearing the ED's petition against Banerjee's alleged resistance to the probe agency's raid at I-PAC office and the firm's co-director Pratik Jain's residence on January 8.

"We are of the prima facie opinion that the present petition has raised a serious issue relating to the investigation by the ED or other central agencies and its interference by State agencies.

"According to us, for furtherance 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 the law enforcement agencies of a particular state," the court said as quoted by Live Law. 

The top court said in its observation that the probe agencies have no power to meddle with any party activity but raised a question on whether such institutions can be barred from exercising their power in case of investigation of "serious offence".

"True that any central agency does not have any power to interfere with the election work of any party. But if the central agency is bona fide investigating any serious offence, the question arises whether in the guise of taking shields of party activities, agencies can be restricted from carrying out power?"

"According to us, larger questions are involved in the present manner, which if allowed to remain undecided, would further worsen the situation and there will be a situation of lawlessness prevailing in one or the other state, considering that different outfits are governing different places," it added, Live Law reports.

Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, representing Banerjee, alleged that the ED conducted the raid at the I-PAC office despite knowing it contained confidential party documents.

Questioning the timing of the action in a poll-bound state, Sibal said, “They knew there was election material there, which is why they went there. They knew that office has confidential election material under a contract. This is a complete malafide act on the part of the ED.”

In response, Mehta argued that the elections are yet to be notified.

Meanwhile, the court has sought responses from the Ministry of Home Affairs, the Department of Personnel and Training and the Trinamool Congress (TMC) government on ED's plea seeking suspension of West Bengal Director General of Police (DGP) Rajeev Kumar, Kolkata Commissioner of Police (CP) Manoj Verma and other officials who accompanied the Chief Minister to Jain's residence and I-PAC office on January 8.

Senior lawyer Abhishek Manu Singhvi, appearing for the West Bengal government and state police, argued that Banerjee is a Z-category protectee and is accompanied by police personnel wherever she goes.

“Whether she is a Chief Minister or president of a party, she is a Z-class protectee,” Singhvi said, as quoted by India Today.

The court has also ordered the respondents to "preserve" the CCTV cameras and other electronic devices containing the footage of the raided premise and nearby areas before the next hearing, which has been scheduled for February 3.

In the first half of the argument, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, who appeared for the ED, accused Banerjee of “theft,” alleging that the Chief Minister had entered the residence of I-PAC head Pratik Jain and taken away a green file, a laptop and a mobile phone.

He claimed Banerjee removed evidence from Jain’s residence, which was one of six locations in West Bengal raided by the ED in connection with the alleged coal scam.

The Supreme Court on Thursday said it was “very much disturbed” by the chaos that had earlier erupted in the Calcutta High Court during the hearing on the ED's petition against Banerjee over the I-PAC raid row.

Describing the incident as a “serious issue,” the apex court took note of the disruption that prompted the ED to move a similar petition before it.

Mehta, appearing for the ED, termed the situation inside the High Court “a mobocracy.”