‘Can’t Dictate When A Hearing Should Happen’: Top Court To Bengal In I-PAC Raid Case

The attorneys for the Bengal government in the I-PAC raid case were informed by the Supreme Court on Wednesday that they “cannot dictate” to the judiciary when a specific case should be heard.  The Enforcement Directorate, or ED, has accused state officials and Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee of tampering with its investigation and searches at the offices of the Trinamool-affiliated political consulting business Indian Political Action Committee, or I-PAC. 

As part of an investigation into money laundering, the raids took place in early January.  The chief minister of Bengal was accused of “gross abuse of power” when he entered the premises during the raids, according to remarks made by the top court during the hearing of the writ case submitted by the central inquiry agency.

The Bengal administration requested more time to reply to the ED’s counter-affidavit, which looks into financial crimes. Senior attorney Shyam Divan, speaking on behalf of the state government, contended that the ED’s affidavit includes a number of fresh claims and grounds for which they need additional time to prepare a response. 

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, speaking on behalf of the ED, opposed this motion for an extension. Mehta argued that the affidavit in question was filed on February 19 and that the current action is only an attempt to postpone the hearing.  He added that the subject is currently being purposefully postponed and that it is surprising for a Chief Minister to meddle in an investigation being carried out by a national body. 

The Chief Minister allegedly entered the IPAC premises with her Z-plus security in “complete disregard of the lawful proceedings that were already underway” and took incriminating documents by force, according to the central inquiry agency.

Senior attorney Menaka Guruswamy, who represented the Bengal government, further contended that they should be given a chance to respond because the affidavit contained fresh accusations. Nevertheless, the court noted that the response had already been submitted some ten days prior and stated that the hearing will now take place.

The court made it clear that one cannot tell the judiciary when to hear a certain case.  The court noted that the proceedings were not a dispute over obtaining an adjournment when Shyam Divan stated that they felt “handicapped” without having filed a response.