What Happened
- The West Bengal government argued before the Supreme Court that the Enforcement Directorate (ED) — as a department of the Central Government — cannot claim a "fundamental right" to investigate, and therefore cannot file a writ petition under Article 32 against a State government.
- The dispute arose from ED raids on the office of political consultancy firm I-PAC in Kolkata on January 8, 2026, in connection with a money laundering investigation linked to the coal scam; West Bengal authorities allegedly obstructed the raids.
- Senior advocates for West Bengal contended that allowing the ED to invoke Article 32 would be "dangerous to the federal structure" and amounted to one arm of the Central Government litigating against a State through the fundamental rights jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.
- The bench noted it was an "unhappy situation" and questioned what remedy would exist if a Chief Minister obstructed a probe — but also flagged that the constitutional questions raised warranted deeper examination.
- West Bengal has sought a reference to a five-judge Constitution Bench under Article 145(3), arguing the case involves substantial questions of constitutional law relating to Centre-State relations.
Static Topic Bridges
Enforcement Directorate: Statutory Status and PMLA Authority
The Enforcement Directorate (ED) is a financial intelligence and law enforcement agency under the Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance. It is not a statutory body with a separate legal personality — it is a government department. Its primary authority to investigate money laundering comes from the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA). The PMLA grants the ED powers to arrest, attach properties, and conduct searches, but does not explicitly confer on it the status of a juristic person capable of suing or being sued in its own name.
- ED established: 1956 (as Enforcement Unit under FERA); reconstituted under PMLA, 2002.
- PMLA, 2002 (as amended in 2005, 2012, 2019): Key legislation governing ED's investigative powers — attachment, prosecution, and international cooperation.
- Schedule to PMLA: Lists "scheduled offences" whose proceeds constitute money laundering; includes corruption (Prevention of Corruption Act), drug trafficking (NDPS Act), and other serious crimes.
- Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India (2022): Supreme Court upheld ED's sweeping powers under PMLA including twin conditions for bail (Section 45); however, the 2022 judgment was later revisited on specific points.
- ED is distinct from statutory bodies like SEBI, CBI (which have enabling statutes conferring juristic status).
Connection to this news: West Bengal's core argument is that the PMLA does not confer on the ED a "right to sue," and hence the agency cannot maintain a writ petition under Article 32 — making the entire petition non-maintainable as a matter of law.
Article 32: Right to Constitutional Remedies and Who Can Invoke It
Article 32 of the Constitution grants every person the right to move the Supreme Court for enforcement of fundamental rights guaranteed under Part III. It is itself a fundamental right (described by Dr. B.R. Ambedkar as the "heart and soul" of the Constitution). Historically, Article 32 petitions have been filed by individuals and, in some cases, by legal persons (companies, societies). The question in this case is whether a government department — which is not a separate legal entity distinct from the State — can invoke Article 32 to enforce what it claims are its rights to function without obstruction.
- Article 32(1): The right to move the SC by appropriate proceedings for enforcement of fundamental rights is itself guaranteed.
- Article 32(2): The SC has power to issue writs — habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto, certiorari — for enforcement of fundamental rights.
- Government departments generally cannot invoke Article 32 against another government because they are not separate legal persons; they are the State itself.
- A government department cannot hold "fundamental rights" against the State since it is an instrumentality of the State (University of Madras v. Shantha Bai, 1954).
- Article 131: The Constitution separately provides for original jurisdiction of the SC in Centre-State disputes — a route that would be appropriate for a government agency.
Connection to this news: The legal crux is whether the ED — an arm of the Central Executive — can bypass Article 131 (Centre-State dispute jurisdiction) and use Article 32, which is meant for citizens and persons to enforce their rights against the State.
Federalism and Centre-State Relations: Constitutional Framework
India is a quasi-federal state with a strong unitary bias (as described by K.C. Wheare). The Constitution distributes legislative, administrative, and financial powers between the Centre and States through the Seventh Schedule (Lists I, II, III). Critically, "Police" and "Public Order" are State subjects (List II), while "Central agencies" (PMLA enforcement) operate under Union List powers. When central investigative agencies operate in State territory, they must do so within the constitutional framework — which has been a recurring flashpoint in Centre-State relations.
- Article 246: Parliament has exclusive power over Union List (List I) subjects; States have power over State List (List II); Concurrent List (List III) for both.
- Entry 1, List II: Public order; Entry 2: Police — both State subjects.
- Entry 93, List I: Offences under Union laws — Parliament can legislate on money laundering (Schedule to PMLA).
- Article 131: SC has exclusive original jurisdiction in disputes between the Centre and a State or between States — the appropriate forum for governmental disputes.
- S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994): Landmark case affirming federalism as a basic feature of the Constitution.
- Article 355: The Centre's duty to protect States from external aggression and internal disturbance — does not authorize a central agency to override State administration.
Connection to this news: West Bengal argues that permitting the ED to file Article 32 petitions against States would erode the federal balance — allowing the Centre to use its agencies to bypass the specific Centre-State dispute jurisdiction under Article 131.
Constitution Bench Reference: Article 145(3)
Article 145(3) of the Constitution requires that any case involving a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution must be decided by a bench of at least five judges. The West Bengal government has sought such a reference, arguing that the ED case raises fundamental questions about: (i) whether a government department can be a juristic person for Article 32 purposes; (ii) whether an arm of the Union Executive can invoke fundamental rights against a State; and (iii) the implications for Centre-State federal relations.
- Article 145(3): Minimum five-judge bench (Constitution Bench) required for substantial constitutional questions.
- Article 145(1): SC may make rules for practice and procedure.
- Precedent: In cases raising federalism questions (S.R. Bommai, Kesavananda Bharati), Constitution Benches are convened.
- The SC currently has a 34-judge sanctioned strength; Constitution Benches are formed as needed.
Connection to this news: If a five-judge bench is constituted, this case could result in a landmark ruling on the institutional limits of central investigative agencies — a significant development for both UPSC GS2 and constitutional law.
Key Facts & Data
- Case: ED v. State of West Bengal, concerning ED raids on I-PAC office, Kolkata (January 8, 2026).
- Key legal question: Can the ED (a government department) invoke Article 32 of the Constitution against a State?
- West Bengal's counsel: Senior Advocates Shyam Divan and Kapil Sibal.
- West Bengal has sought reference to a five-judge Constitution Bench under Article 145(3).
- PMLA, 2002: Primary statute under which ED operates; does not confer juristic status on the agency.
- Article 32: Fundamental right to constitutional remedies — historically available to "persons," not government departments.
- Article 131: Exclusive original SC jurisdiction for Centre-State disputes.
- The next hearing is scheduled for March 24, 2026.
- The case has implications for similar disputes involving the ED in Kerala, Tamil Nadu, and other Opposition-governed States.