New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Tuesday adjourned to February 10 the hearing on a plea filed by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) alleging interference by the West Bengal government and Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee during recent search operations at the office of political consultancy firm Indian Political Action Committee (I-PAC) and the residence of its co-founder Pratik Jain in Kolkata.
A Bench of Justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and Vipul M. Pancholi deferred the matter after Solicitor General (SG) Tushar Mehta, appearing for the ED, sought time to file a response to the counter affidavit filed by the West Bengal government earlier in the day.
The Centre’s second-highest law officer informed the Apex Court that the state government’s response was received only on Tuesday, and the Central agency required time to examine it and place its rejoinder on record.
Acceding to the request, the Justice Mishra-led Bench posted the matter for further hearing on February 10.
In its petition, the ED has sought directions for registration of FIRs against CM Mamata, the state Director General of Police (DGP) and the Kolkata Police Commissioner, alleging obstruction of lawful duties during the agency’s simultaneous search operations.
In the previous hearing, the Supreme Court stayed the FIRs registered by the West Bengal Police against ED officials in connection with the searches, observing that the petitions raise serious questions of alleged interference by state agencies in a central investigation.
Issuing notice to the Chief Minister and senior police officials, the Justice Mishra-led Bench had granted them two weeks to file their counter-affidavits and listed the matter for further hearing on February 3.
In its interim order, the Top Court had also directed preservation of CCTV footage and other digital storage devices containing recordings of the searched premises as well as the surrounding areas, noting that, prima facie, the petitions raised “a serious issue relating to the investigations by the Directorate of Enforcement or other Central Agencies and its interference by State Agencies”.
It had warned that if such issues are allowed to remain undecided, it could lead to a situation of “lawlessness” in one or more states. SG Mehta had described the incident as a case where “mobocracy replaces democracy”, alleging that the Central agency’s officials were intimidated and prevented from discharging their lawful duties.
On the other hand, senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, representing the West Bengal government, had raised objections to the maintainability of the ED’s petition, alleging forum shopping and contending that adequate remedies were available before the Calcutta High Court, where similar prayers were already pending.
(IANS)
