New Delhi: Solicitor General (SG) Tushar Mehta, referring to the recent obstruction faced by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) during its search operations in West Bengal, on Thursday told the Supreme Court that it was “a case where mobocracy replaces democracy”.
Appearing for the ED, SG Mehta, the second-highest law officer, submitted before a Bench of Justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and Vipul M. Pancholi that the federal anti-money laundering agency was prevented from discharging its lawful duties through intimidation, disruption, and show of force.
During the raids conducted at the office of the Indian Political Action Committee (I-PAC) and the residence of its co-founder Pratik Jain in Kolkata, the Solicitor General said that Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee, along with senior police officers, barged into the premises and interfered with the search operation.
“This is a case where mobocracy replaces democracy,” he submitted, referring to earlier instances where officers of Central agencies were allegedly gheraoed, stones were pelted, and their residences targeted in West Bengal.
Mehta told the top court that despite prior intimation to the local police, senior state officials of West Bengal took unauthorised custody of incriminating material collected during the operation.
He claimed that digital devices and documents were forcibly taken away, and even the mobile phone of an ED official was seized.
The Solicitor General said that such actions not only amount to serious criminal offences but also have a demoralising effect on investigating officers. He contended that public interference and media statements made during the operation would discourage officers from performing their duties fearlessly in future.
Seeking judicial intervention, SG Mehta urged the apex court to set an example as he sought directions for initiating legal action, including suspension, against the police officers present during the alleged obstruction.
On the other hand, senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, representing the West Bengal government, raised strong objections to the maintainability of the petition filed by the ED and alleged forum shopping. Singhvi contended that the ED had adequate remedies before the Calcutta High Court and that broadly identical prayers were already pending there.
(IANS)
