Supreme Court to send ED plea to CBI

Supreme Court on Tuesday signaled it may shift the investigation of the Enforcement Directorate‘s claim that former West Bengal chief minister Mamata Banerjee obstructed a search of the I‑PAC office to the Central Bureau of Investigation. The bench heard arguments on September 2.

Petition and procedural backdrop

The writ petition, filed by the ED and its officers, seeks registration of an FIR and a CBI probe into alleged interference by Banerjee and several police officials during a January raid on the political consultancy linked to the All India Trinamool Congress. The case is listed as WP (Crl) No. 16/2026.

A two‑judge panel comprising Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice N.V. Anjaria presided over the hearing. Their docket reflects a rare intersection of criminal procedure and political accountability.

Arguments over maintainability

Senior Advocate Menaka Guruswamy, representing Banerjee, argued that the change of government in West Bengal renders the petition moot. She maintained that the state police, now under a new administration, are competent to investigate, and that the court should not intervene on a procedural ground.

Justice Mishra responded that the passage of time and the new government left little substantive issue, suggesting a straightforward referral to the CBI: “You can refer to CBI, we will enable you.” He began to draft an order before the Solicitor General spoke.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta objected, insisting the court decide the broader principle rather than dispose of the case because of the political shift. “We don’t want to face any allegations that the State Government, because of political reasons, has done it,” he warned, cautioning against a “death trap” of post‑election transfers.

Additional Solicitor General S.V. Raju framed the dispute as a question of jurisdiction: whether a sitting chief minister who also holds the home portfolio can be investigated by the CBI. The point highlights the rarity of a sitting premier being the subject of a federal probe.

The bench spent considerable time parsing whether the parties had argued only the petition’s maintainability or also its merits. Guruswamy insisted the discussion had stayed within procedural limits, while the Solicitor General claimed both issues had been addressed.

Justice Mishra warned that insisting on a separate merits hearing could backfire for Banerjee’s counsel. “If you argue on merits, whatever materials you call it merits, then there will be difficulty for you,” he cautioned, emphasizing the bench’s authority to set its own procedure.

The hearing is scheduled to resume on September 2. Guruswamy will conclude her arguments, and senior advocates Kapil Sibal and Shyam Divan are expected to appear for Banerjee’s side.

For the record, the parties before the panel are: Tushar Mehta, Solicitor General, with S.V. Raju, Additional Solicitor General, for the Enforcement Directorate; and Menaka Guruswamy, senior advocate, assisted by Kapil Sibal and Shyam Divan, for Mamata Banerjee. The tribunal will issue its order after considering both procedural and substantive issues.