The case marks a significant flashpoint in the ongoing tussle between central investigative agencies and the TMC-ruled West Bengal government ahead of the local assembly elections in the state.
Also Read: I-PAC raids: Bengal moves Supreme Court as case escalates
At the outset, counsel appearing for the West Bengal government sought additional time to respond to the ED’s rejoinder affidavit, arguing that it contained extensive averments going beyond the scope of the original issue. The request was opposed by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, who argued that any delay must be justified.
A bench comprising Justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and K. V. Vishwanathan declined to adjourn the matter and directed the state to begin its submissions.
The West Bengal government then sought a reference to a Constitution bench, contending that the case raises substantial questions involving the interpretation of the Constitution — particularly on whether the ED’s plea is maintainable under Article 32, and how disputes between a central agency and a state government should be adjudicated.
Senior Advocate Shyam Divan, appearing for the state, invoked Article 145 (Rules of Court), arguing that a government department — not being a body corporate — cannot sue in its own name. He submitted that while both the Centre and states function through departments, such entities must possess legal personhood to invoke constitutional remedies.Also Read: ED and West Bengal counsels engage in heated exchange over I-PAC raids
In this case, he argued, the Union is effectively invoking Part III of the Constitution against a state — even though the state’s role is to guarantee fundamental rights to citizens — exposing what he described as a structural inconsistency in the ED’s plea.
The proceedings are being closely watched as they could set a precedent on the balance of power between the Centre and states, especially in matters involving investigative agencies and constitutional remedies.
