The Enforcement Directorate (ED) has informed the Supreme Court of India that it is under no statutory obligation to notify state police before conducting a search as part of an investigation. The submission comes in connection with the agency’s petition accusing the West Bengal government and Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee of interfering in its action against political consultancy firm Indian Political Action Committee (I-PAC).
In a 65-page rejoinder filed before the apex court, the ED rejected claims made by the West Bengal Police and defended the legality of its actions.
If you enjoyed reading this article, you can help support our journalism by adding OHeraldo as a preferred source.
January 8 Faceoff at Kolkata Residence
At the centre of the dispute is a January 8 confrontation between the central agency and the state administration during a search at the Kolkata residence of Pratik Jain, associated with I-PAC.
The ED has maintained that the search was conducted in connection with an alleged illegal coal mining case. However, the ruling All India Trinamool Congress (TMC) in West Bengal has alleged that the raid was aimed at seizing documents related to its campaign strategy for the upcoming Assembly elections. I-PAC has been working closely with the Mamata Banerjee-led party on election campaigns.
ED Alleges Violation of Officers’ Fundamental Rights
In its submission, the ED also accused Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee and the state police of violating the fundamental rights of its officers during the search operation.
“Every official enjoys the same fundamental rights as an individual and this includes the right to move freely and the right to personal liberty to the extent permissible under law. When an official enters a premise under the authority of law, he is, as an individual, exercising his right to personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. Acts of intimidation, use of force, wrongful confinement of the officer and abuse of state machinery to interdict the official from freely going to all places which are legally permissible and taking all legally permissible actions, violates the fundamental right of such an official,” the agency stated in its rejoinder.
The matter is currently under consideration before the Supreme Court, with the case highlighting tensions between central investigative agencies and state governments over jurisdiction and authority in politically sensitive probes.
(This story is published from a syndicated feed)
