The Supreme Court indicated Tuesday it may transfer the Enforcement Directorate’s request against former West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee to the Central Bureau of Investigation, despite objections from her legal team.
A bench of Justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and N.V. Anjaria considered arguments in a writ petition filed by the ED. The agency alleges Banerjee obstructed its search of the office of I-PAC — the political consultancy associated with the All India Trinamool Congress — in January and seeks an FIR and investigation against her and several police officials.
The hearing took an unexpected turn when Banerjee’s counsel, Senior Advocate Menaka Guruswamy, noted West Bengal’s recent change in government. Guruswamy argued the new administration could now handle the investigation, making judicial intervention unnecessary. Justice Mishra suggested the court might facilitate the transfer to the CBI, noting the change had created new conditions for the case.
Related: Bihar police deny firing AK-47 caused injuries
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the ED, opposed this view. He urged the court to decide whether a sitting chief minister—who also held the home portfolio—could be investigated by state police. “We want to avoid claims that the state government acted for political motives,” Mehta stated. “The court should determine if our position is correct.”
Additional Solicitor General S.V. Raju presented the issue as a matter of principle: if the accused holds the highest executive office in the state, should the CBI intervene? The question remained unresolved, though the court clarified it would not divide the hearing into separate arguments on maintainability and merits.
Guruswamy contended the ED’s approach was procedurally flawed. The ED responded that in this instance, the agency claimed state machinery could not be trusted and that the court had authority to direct a CBI probe in exceptional cases. The dispute stems from a January search at I-PAC’s office, where the ED alleges its officers were obstructed. The agency claims Banerjee was present and acknowledged being at the location, though the court noted this would be a matter for investigators to determine.
Related: Your NYC Lawyer Knows What Insurance Companies Don’t Want You to Find Out
Justice Mishra cautioned Banerjee’s team that pushing for a merits hearing could have consequences. “If we rule on maintainability, we’ll refer the case to the CBI,” he said. “Once you argue merits, we may record something unfavorable.” The court refused to separate the arguments, insisting it would address both questions simultaneously.
The ED’s preference for a judicial decision over a political one highlights concerns about state police handling cases against high-ranking officials, especially when the accused controls the home ministry.
The hearing will continue September 2, with Senior Advocate Menaka Guruswamy representing Banerjee. No FIR has been filed, and no charges have been brought. The court’s remarks so far focus only on which agency should investigate, not the validity of the allegations.