New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Wednesday said a Chief Minister cannot walk into probe by a central agency and claim that it is a dispute between the Centre and the State, and the matter at hand is not an ordinary dispute of "Ram versus Shyam," but an extraordinary situation with distinct contours.
A bench of Justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and N V Anjaria expressed strong disagreement with the contention about maintainability of the writ petition by the Enforcement Directorate for lodging a CBI FIR against West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee for alleged interference into search operation launched at I-PAC office in Kolkata earlier this year.
'Deplorable': Supreme Court slams Bengal officials for 'inaction' over attack on judicial officers"A Chief Minister of any State cannot walk into the midst of an investigation, put the democracy in peril, and then say it is a dispute between the State and the Union," the bench asked.
The court also did not agree to an argument that the ED should have approached the judicial magistrate for lodging the FIR instead of filing a writ petition. It referred to a recent gherao of judicial officers engaged in SIR exercise by this court.
Examining the matter, the bench said that it is not a dispute between the state and the Union, and a Chief Minister of any state cannot walk in the midst of an investigation, put democracy in peril.
"Don't convert this into a dispute between the state and the Union. This is, per se, an act committed by an individual who happens to be the Chief Minister," the bench said in response to the submission by senior advocate Maneka Guruswamy against the maintainability of the plea.
West Bengal Assembly Elections 2026 | 'Left state at mercy of goons': Amit Shah takes dig at Mamata during road show"When we come to the facts, the court will see there is no situation as described by the other side," she said.
The court was told that there was no criminal conduct, there was no intimidation, and there was no infraction. It was also contended that the questions related to Article 32, arising in the present case, were required to be examined by a larger bench.
It was also argued that the ED could have moved before a judicial magistrate with its complaint.
The bench, however, said that it cannot ignore the realities on the ground in West Bengal and pointed to the recent incident where judicial officers were held hostage. "And you want the petitioner to have gone to a magistrate under Section 200," the bench asked.
The court said it cannot lose sight of the practical situation which is present in the state.
"Don't compel us to make observations. This is not a litigation between Ram and Shyam. This is an extraordinary situation where the contours are totally different. Court has to take a decision keeping in view socio-political realities," the bench said.