New Delhi: As the Enforcement Directorate made its case before Justices PK Mishra and NV Anjaria, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta argued that ED officers are citizens entitled to protection of fundamental rights, and detailed a pattern of alleged obstruction stretching back to 2019.
The Supreme Court on Thursday heard extended submissions on the maintainability of the Enforcement Directorate’s writ petition under Article 32, arising from the alleged obstruction of a PMLA search operation at the I-PAC office in Kolkata on January 8, 2026. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta argued before a bench of Justices PK Mishra and NV Anjaria that when the Chief Minister of a State personally arrives at a search site with hundreds of police officers, causes documents to be seized from central investigating officers, and facilitates the registration of FIRs against those officers, the rule of law ceases to function and the Court must step in.
The previous day, the bench had orally observed that Banerjee’s alleged conduct had imperilled democracy. The State of West Bengal contested the petition on maintainability grounds, arguing that the ED is not a “citizen” capable of claiming fundamental rights, and that a dispute of this nature between a Central agency and a State functionary is not maintainable under Article 32.
“Rule of law ceases to operate when the political executive uses state machinery to obstruct investigation.”
~ Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, Supreme Court (April 23, 2026)
Mehta anchored his maintainability argument on Petitioner No. 2, Deputy Director Robin Bansal, a natural person and citizen of India who was personally present during the search and against whom FIRs have since been registered by the West Bengal Police. He submitted that the ED, in filing the petition, acts in a representative capacity for officers whose individual rights under Articles 14, 20, and 21 have allegedly been violated.
The bench probed this closely, noting that fundamental rights are “person-centric,” and questioned whether officers acting in an official capacity could claim those rights as individuals. Mehta responded that merely because a person discharges official duties does not strip them of their status as a person entitled to constitutional protection. He rejected the attempt to import Article 19 jurisprudence, which uses the word “citizen,” into the analysis, arguing that the relevant provision is Article 14, which guarantees equality before the law to all persons and embodies the rule of law.
The State also invoked Article 131, arguing that if this were a Centre–State dispute, it must be routed through that provision, requiring adjudication by a Constitution Bench. Mehta dismissed this as “preposterous,” noting that Article 131 deals with disputes between the Union and a State as constitutional entities, such as river water disputes. The present case, he argued, involves the president of a political party who happens to be the Chief Minister on one side, and individual officers of a statutory body drawing salaries from the Union on the other.
Mehta described how, on January 8, 2026, ED teams carried out simultaneous searches at ten premises pursuant to their investigation into alleged coal smuggling estimated at ₹2,700 crore. One such search was conducted at the I-PAC (Indian Political Action Committee) office in Kolkata. The search authorisation had been duly obtained and presented. During the proceedings, local police arrived and instructed the officers to inform them if they intended to continue. A DCP visited and stated that a complaint of house trespass had been received.
At approximately 12:40 pm, the Chief Minister herself arrived at the premises, accompanied by hundreds of police personnel. Mehta submitted that what followed included: the seizure by police of documents indexed by ED officers; interruption of an ongoing computer system backup; removal of storage devices from security cameras; and seizure of mobile phones belonging to I-PAC employees. The Chief Minister’s affidavit, he noted, stated that she believed political documents were being taken, without, he argued, distinguishing between political material and evidence relevant to a criminal investigation.
The presence of the DGP was explained in the State’s affidavit on the ground that the Chief Minister, as a Z-category protectee, required security. Mehta criticised this justification, stating that it effectively reduced the DGP to the role of the Chief Minister’s personal security officer.
To contextualise the events of January 8, Mehta referred to what he described as a consistent pattern of obstruction by the West Bengal government against central investigative agencies. He cited a 2019 incident in which CBI officers attempting to visit the then Commissioner of Police—now a Rajya Sabha MP—were detained by local police. He also referred to an instance where the Chief Minister entered the regional office of the CBI while a crowd simultaneously gheraoed the residence of a CBI Joint Director. He presented photographs before the Court and referred to WhatsApp group chats which, he submitted, indicated coordination of disruptions to proceedings before the Calcutta High Court.
The Court questioned the relevance of these past incidents to the issue of maintainability. Mehta responded that the State had argued that the ED should have approached the Calcutta High Court instead. He submitted that the High Court had itself recorded that conditions were “not conducive for hearing,” rendering that forum practically unavailable.
“Merely because someone discharges official duty, does he cease to be a ‘person’? It is my right to be proceeded against in accordance with law. When I say right, it is the right of my officers.”
~ Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, Supreme Court (April 23, 2026)
Following Mehta’s submissions, Additional Solicitor General SV Raju addressed the Court on whether specific cognisable offences had been made out against the ED officers. He referred to the authorisation letter dated January 7, 2026, and argued that officers authorised to conduct a search—who have documents taken from them, are wrongfully confined, and have property removed—are victims of personal offences under the BNS. He cited Section 2(14) of the BNS, which defines “injury.”
The bench expressed scepticism, noting that the premises being searched did not belong to the ED but to Pratik Jain, making the allegation of theft difficult to sustain at this stage. Raju maintained that these were matters for investigation and that the officers were prima facie victims. He emphasised the right of victims to a fair investigation free from apprehension of bias.
The hearing also witnessed a sharp exchange when Senior Advocate Menaka Guruswamy, appearing for a West Bengal police officer, accused Mehta of using the Court’s proceedings as a social media tool in a political campaign. Mehta responded that he would maintain “dignified silence” and would not behave “like a street fighter,” to which Guruswamy retorted that he was “neither dignified nor silent.” The bench intervened, expressing discomfort with how court proceedings are selectively used by both sides.
The proceedings are still ongoing.
Case Reference
- Case Title: Enforcement Directorate & Anr. v. Mamata Banerjee & Ors.
- Court: Supreme Court of India
- Case No.: WP (C) No. 16/2026
- Type: Writ Petition under Article 32 – Rule of Law / Fundamental Rights
- Petitioners: Enforcement Directorate & Robin Bansal (Deputy Director, ED)
- Bench: Justice PK Mishra & Justice NV Anjaria
- Date of Hearing: April 23, 2026
- Appearances: SG Tushar Mehta & ASG SV Raju (ED); Sr. Adv. Kapil Sibal (Mamata Banerjee); Sr. Adv. Menaka Guruswamy (WB Police Officer)
