PTI
New Delhi
The Supreme Court on Thursday termed the Enforcement Directorate’s (ED) allegation of obstruction by West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee in its probe and search operation at the office of political consultancy firm I-PAC as “serious” and agreed to examine if law enforcement agencies of a state can interfere with a central agency’s investigation into any serious offence.
As it observed that larger questions are involved in the plea of the Enforcement Directorate which, if left undecided, will lead to “lawlessness” in one or the other state, the court also stayed the FIRs against the agency officials, who raided I-PAC in Kolkata on January 8 sparking a tense standoff with Banerjee.
A bench of Justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and Vipul Pancholi issued notices to Banerjee, the West Bengal government, DGP Rajeev Kumar and top cops on the ED’s petitions seeking a CBI probe against them for allegedly obstructing raids at I-PAC premises. The matter was posted for further hearing on February 3.
While the BJP in its reaction said Banerjee has received a “solid jolt” from the apex court, the TMC maintained that the ED action was “politically motivated” and timed with the approaching assembly polls in West Bengal. The ED has alleged interference and obstruction by the West Bengal government, including by the TMC chief.
supremo, in its probe and search operation at the office of Indian Political Action Committee (I-PAC) and the premises of its director Pratik Jain, in connection with an alleged coal-pilferage scam.
The top court also directed the state police to protect the CCTV footage of the raids. “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.
