The Supreme Court, on Wednesday, slammed West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee for interfering with the ED raid at I-PAC's co-founder Pratik Jain's residence in January, saying that when the chief minister of a state interferes with an ongoing investigation by a central probe agency, it cannot be called a dispute between the State and the Centre.
Alleging that the central agency was attempting to seize the TMC’s internal documents, hard disks and sensitive data linked to its election strategy, the chief minister, who was at the residence during the raid for 20-25 minutes, came out with a green folder in her hand. “They have raided the residence and offices of our in-charge of IT cell. They were confiscating my party’s documents and hard disks, which have details about our party candidates for the assembly polls. I have brought those back,” Banerjee had then claimed.
The apex court bench comprising Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice N.V. Anjaria, which heard the petition filed by the central agency seeking registration of a CBI FIR against the CM and state police officials for obstructing the raid, said the CM cannot put the democracy in peril with such actions.
When senior Advocate Menaka Guruswamy, appearing for the state, argued that the matter was a dispute between the State and the Union, the bench disagreed, saying it was not a dispute between the state and the central government.
The bench observed, "This is not a dispute between the State and the Union. A chief minister of any State cannot walk in the midst of an investigation, put the democracy in peril, and then say…don’t convert this into a dispute between the State and the Union."
"This is per se an act committed by an individual who happens to be the chief minister, keeping the whole democracy in jeopardy," the bench said, reports Bar and Bench.
The court also made an observation on the political situation in West Bengal, saying it cannot shut its eyes to the reality of what is happening. "We cannot lose sight of the practical situation which is present in the State. Don’t compel us to make observations. This is not a litigation between Ram vs Shyam. This is an extraordinary situation where the contours are totally different. Court has to take decision keeping in view socio-political realities. It is an ever evolving process," the court observed, according to Bar and Bench.
