‘Not a happy situation’: Supreme Court flags legal vacuum if probe agencies blocked by chief ministers

THe sublime margaret court on wed observed that it would be “ non a well-chosen situation” if an investigating agency is left without any legal remedy when a chief minister or head of a state allegedly obstructs a lawful probe, underlining that the Constitution does not contemplate any such vacuum.A bench of justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and NV Anjaria made the remark while hearing a petition filed by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) against the West Bengal government over the alleged disruption of a money laundering probe at the office of Indian Political Action Committee (I-PAC) - a political consultancy linked to the Trinamool Congress.Raising objections on maintainability under Article 32, senior advocate Shyam Divan, appearing for the state, argued that the ED is not a juristic entity and has no fundamental rights, and therefore cannot invoke the Supreme Court’s writ jurisdiction. He said allowing such petitions would open the door to inter-departmental or Centre-state disputes outside the constitutional framework envisaged under Article 131.The bench, however, posed a larger constitutional question. “You may argue that this petition is not maintainable either under Article 32 or under Article 226 before the high courts. But who will then decide if someday, some other chief minister in future may barge into some other office? It is not a very happy situation,” the court said.Emphasising the need to avoid a legal vacuum, the bench added, “In our constitutional set-up, there cannot be a vacuum or a void preventing that a matter cannot be decided or resolved.”The ED has alleged that West Bengal chief minister Mamata Banerjee interfered with a lawful search under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) at the I-PAC office in January, entering the premises along with police personnel and removing documents and digital devices during the search.The agency claimed the intervention disrupted the probe and created an atmosphere of coercion, preventing it from completing the search and securing evidence. It has sought transfer of the investigation to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), citing cross-FIRs by the Kolkata Police and the need for a “holistic, comprehensive and coordinated” probe.Banerjee has denied the allegations, accusing the ED of conducting a “pretextual raid” to access political data ahead of assembly elections. She termed the petition an attempt by “accused persons to choose who investigates them”.Earlier, the Supreme Court had taken note of the seriousness of the allegations, stayed proceedings arising out of FIRs registered by the Kolkata Police against ED officials, and directed the state to preserve CCTV footage and other electronic material relating to the incident, warning against a potential “situation of lawlessness”.During the hearing on Wednesday, the state reiterated its preliminary objection that the ED, being merely a department under the Union government, lacks the legal personality to maintain a writ petition. Divan argued that fundamental rights under Part III of the Constitution are enforceable only by natural or juridical persons, and not by government departments exercising statutory powers.Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for the chief minister, supported the objection. “It is not a fundamental right to investigate,” he said, adding that the ED cannot invoke Article 32 in the absence of a violation of fundamental rights.Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the ED, countered that the issue goes beyond technical questions of maintainability and concerns whether an agency can be prevented from performing its statutory duties by a constitutional functionary.He argued that if the functioning of an agency is obstructed by the “head of a state”, the court cannot be rendered powerless to examine the legality of such conduct.The bench indicated that the question of maintainability and the merits may be considered together, declining the state’s request to decide maintainability as a preliminary issue. “You cannot dictate what the court should do,” it told the state’s counsel.The hearing remained inconclusive and will continue next week, with the court expected to examine both the maintainability of the ED’s petition and the broader constitutional implications of the alleged interference with a central agency’s investigation.The ED’s probe stems from a CBI case registered in November 2020 alleging illegal coal mining at Eastern Coalfields Ltd mines in Kunustoria and Kajora in West Bengal. The agency has alleged that around ₹10 crore in proceeds of crime were routed to I-PAC through hawala channels and that the firm was paid by the Trinamool Congress for services during the 2022 Goa assembly elections.I-PAC has been associated with the TMC since the 2019 Lok Sabha polls and is currently engaged with the party ahead of upcoming Bengal elections.