Lagatar24 Desk
Kolkata: The Supreme Court witnessed intense arguments in the I-PAC ED raid case as senior advocate Kapil Sibal, representing Mamata Banerjee, faced sharp observations from the bench over his submissions, with the court cautioning him to stay focused on the core issue.
Court Warns Against Repeated ED Arguments
During the hearing, the bench of Justice P.K. Mishra and Justice N.V. Anjaria told Sibal not to repeatedly harp on the Enforcement Directorate (ED) and instead address the main legal issues. The court emphasized that the matter also involves the fundamental rights of ED officials who have separately approached the court.
Sibal Questions Maintainability Of ED Plea
Kapil Sibal argued that the ED’s petition is not maintainable, stating it was filed through a deputy director who was not present at the scene. He also contended that the petitioner cannot claim violation of fundamental rights if they are not directly affected.
Bench Highlights Broader Scope Of Rights
The Supreme Court rejected this line of argument, stating that fundamental rights are not always limited to individuals. The bench questioned whether the “rule of law” itself is a fundamental right and cited the Kesavananda Bharati case, underlining the link between constitutional structure and fundamental rights.
Debate Over ED’s Legal Standing
Sibal further argued that ED is not a constitutional body and that disputes involving the Centre should be brought under Article 131 rather than Article 32. He maintained that existing legal provisions under criminal law are sufficient to address any alleged obstruction of officials.
Court Questions Alleged Interference By CM
The bench asked how the ED should respond if a Chief Minister allegedly interferes in an investigation. While Sibal termed it merely an allegation, the court noted that the claims were based on factual assertions and must be examined independently.
Next Hearing Scheduled For April 14
The court clarified that the case involves two distinct aspects—investigation under PMLA and alleged interference in that process. It indicated that both issues would be examined separately. The next hearing in the matter is scheduled for April 14.
