Mamata Banerjee addressing party workers in Kolkata. File photo: X/@AITCofficia
The Supreme Court on Tuesday (March 24, 2026) asked West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee what her “legal reaction” would be if, in a reversal of fortune, she were to come to power in the Centre in 2030-2031, and a Chief Minister from an opposing party “barged” in and disrupted a raid by a Central agency.
The query from the Bench headed by Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra came in reaction to submissions made by both Ms. Banerjee and the State of West Bengal that the Directorate of Enforcement (ED) cannot move the Supreme Court directly under Article 32 of the Constitution, “crying” violation of its fundamental rights.
The ED’s petition is an offshoot of its “interrupted” raid in January at the I-PAC co-founder Pratik Jain’s residence and offices. The Trinamool Congress, the poll-bound State’s ruling party, is reported to consult I-PAC on electoral and political strategy. The ED’s case is that Ms. Banerjee intruded on the raids and took away paper and digital evidence. The Central agency has sought a CBI probe against her and senior police officers.
“What would you do if the situation were reversed? In 2030-2031, you come to power in the Centre, and one of their Chief Ministers does something like this… What will be your reaction, your legal reaction?” Justice Mishra asked senior advocate Kalyan Bandhopadhyay, appearing for Ms. Banerjee along with senior advocate Kapil Sibal.
Mr. Bandhopadhyay said, “We have to go by the law”.
The court noted that one of the Article 32 petitions filed in the case was by an ED officer.
“Do officers of the ED cease to be citizens of India merely because they are in the official post at the time? Is it that any wrong can be done to them, and they cannot approach this court under Article 32? Please address us on this question,” Justice Mishra indicated the questions in the “court’s mind” to Mr. Bandhopadhyay.
In an earlier hearing, the court had asked the West Bengal Government if the ED officers were expected to merely “look and watch” when Chief Minister Banerjee “barged” in.
The State, represented by senior advocates A. M. Singhvi, Shyam Divan and Siddharth Luthra, had argued 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”.
Mr. Divan had submitted that the ED was an instrument of the Centre, a department of the Central government. The Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), which governs the ED, does not give the agency the “right to sue”.
But the Bench had asked what would be the situation if other Chief Ministers, taking the cue from Ms. Banerjee, start emulating her. 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.
Published – March 24, 2026 10:18 pm IST
