Bengal Govt Argues ED Filing Writs Undermines Federalism

The Supreme Court is currently hearing a significant constitutional challenge raised by the West Bengal government against the maintainability of a writ petition filed by the Enforcement Directorate (ED). The core of the West Bengal government's argument, presented by senior advocate Shyam Divan, is that the ED, being merely a department of the Union government and not a 'juristic person' or a 'body corporate', lacks the legal standing to invoke Article 32 of the Constitution to file a writ petition against a state government. [2, 6, 9, 12, 16] This contention arose following an incident on January 8, 2026, where the ED alleged that West Bengal authorities, including Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee, obstructed its raid on the offices of the political consultancy firm I-PAC in Kolkata, and subsequently removed materials from the premises. [2, 10, 15, 21] The ED sought a Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) probe against Banerjee and senior police officials for allegedly interfering with the investigation. [2, 9] The West Bengal government contends that allowing a central government department like the ED to directly file writ petitions against a state government would be 'dangerous to the federal structure' and would undermine the constitutional framework governing Centre-State disputes. [2, 3, 9, 12, 16] Divan argued that Article 32 is meant for the enforcement of fundamental rights, which can only be claimed by 'persons,' and a government department cannot claim such rights or allege a violation of its fundamental rights. [2, 9, 12] He further submitted that if the Union government has grievances against a state, it should utilize alternative remedies, such as invoking the Supreme Court's original jurisdiction under Article 131, rather than using investigative agencies as a proxy to initiate constitutional litigation. [11, 16] The state government has also requested that the matter be referred to a five-judge Constitution Bench, citing that it involves substantial questions of constitutional interpretation concerning the federal structure and Centre-State relations. [3, 12] The Supreme Court bench, comprising Justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and NV Anjaria, questioned the West Bengal government on whether the ED would be left 'remediless' if its investigations were obstructed, highlighting the unusual nature of the situation. [9, 16] Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee, through her counsel Kapil Sibal, has also argued that the ED's authority stems from statutes like the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) and does not confer fundamental rights that would allow it to file a writ petition under Article 32. [14] The ED, in its rejoinder affidavit, disputed the state's version of events and maintained that materials were removed from the premises without its consent. [2] This legal battle is part of a larger ongoing discussion in the Indian judiciary regarding the locus standi of central investigative agencies to file writ petitions, with similar issues being raised by the governments of Kerala and Tamil Nadu concerning the ED's right to invoke Article 226. [4, 5, 7, 8, 11] The Supreme Court has agreed to examine this fundamental constitutional question of whether investigative agencies like the ED can be considered 'juristic persons' entitled to file such petitions. [4, 5, 7, 8, 11] The West Bengal government's plea for a Constitution Bench underscores the gravity of the issue, emphasizing its potential impact on the delicate balance of power between the Centre and the states in India's federal system. [3, 12] The ongoing hearing reflects a crucial moment in the judicial interpretation of federalism and the operational autonomy of central agencies within the Indian constitutional framework. [10, 15] The case highlights the increasing friction between central investigative bodies and opposition-led state governments, raising concerns about the potential for misuse of investigative powers for political ends. [10, 15, 20] The Supreme Court's decision on the maintainability of the ED's petition and the broader question of its legal standing will have significant implications for the future of Centre-State relations and the functioning of investigative agencies in India. [11, 15] The matter is being closely watched due to its far-reaching legal and political ramifications. [20] It is important to note that the provided search results indicate that the hearing in the Supreme Court was ongoing on March 18, 2026, with arguments presented by both sides. The exact date of the original article publication from Live Law, as per the provided snippets, is March 18, 2026. [2]

Frequently Asked Questions

Read Full Story on Quick Digest