Current Affairs Topics Archive
International Relations Economics Polity & Governance Environment & Ecology Science & Technology Internal Security Geography Social Issues Art & Culture Modern History

I-PAC raid: Supreme Court poses question to West Bengal CM

March 24, 2026 6 min read Polity & Governance GS2
On This Page ▼

What Happened

  • The Supreme Court (Bench: Justices PK Mishra and NV Anjaria) posed sharp questions to the West Bengal government on March 24, 2026, regarding the Enforcement Directorate (ED) officials' right to carry out lawful duties unobstructed.
  • The case arose from a January 8, 2026 ED raid on the Kolkata office of I-PAC (Indian Political Action Committee), a political consultancy, in connection with a money-laundering investigation linked to the 2020 coal smuggling scam.
  • West Bengal CM Mamata Banerjee had visited the I-PAC founder's residence and office during the raids, leaving with documents — which the ED alleged constituted obstruction.
  • West Bengal Police subsequently registered FIRs against ED officials, which the Supreme Court has already stayed.
  • The central constitutional question: Can the ED — a Central government agency — directly file a writ petition before the Supreme Court under Article 32, claiming violation of its fundamental rights against a State government? West Bengal argued Article 32 is available only to citizens against the state, not to government agencies.
  • The Supreme Court questioned this objection, noting that ED officials who filed the petition in their personal capacity do not cease to be citizens, and asked what recourse ED officers have if faced with state interference while performing lawful duties.

Static Topic Bridges

Article 32: The Right to Constitutional Remedies and Its Limitations

Article 32 of the Constitution, described by Dr. B.R. Ambedkar as the "heart and soul of the Constitution," guarantees the right to approach the Supreme Court directly for enforcement of fundamental rights guaranteed under Part III. Under Article 32, the Supreme Court can issue writs of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto, and certiorari. Article 32 applies to persons claiming violation of their fundamental rights by the State. The question raised in this case — whether a government agency (the ED) can invoke Article 32 against a State government — is novel. The traditional position is that Article 32 is a remedy for citizens/individuals against the State, not for one State organ against another (which would use Article 131, original jurisdiction for Centre-State disputes).

  • Article 32: Direct Supreme Court access for fundamental rights enforcement; one of the fundamental rights itself (Part III).
  • Five writs: Habeas corpus (produce the body), Mandamus (command to perform duty), Prohibition (lower court to stop), Quo Warranto (by what authority), Certiorari (quash lower court order).
  • Article 131: Original jurisdiction for disputes between Centre and States or between States — not available to ED.
  • The ED filed under Article 32 as a "guardian of citizens' fundamental rights" (parens patriae argument).
  • West Bengal's counter: Central agencies must use Article 131 for disputes with States; Article 32 is for citizens, not government bodies.
  • SC's observation: ED officers petitioned in their individual capacity as citizens — this independent basis sustains maintainability.

Connection to this news: The case tests whether the constitutional architecture of fundamental rights and remedies extends to Central investigative agencies facing state-level obstruction — a question with major implications for federal relations.

The Enforcement Directorate (ED) is a multi-disciplinary law enforcement agency under the Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue). It was established in 1956. The ED enforces two primary laws: (i) the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) — which covers investigation, attachment, and prosecution of money laundering offences; and (ii) the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 (FEMA) — which covers foreign exchange violations. The ED has powers of search, seizure, and arrest under PMLA without requiring prior judicial permission for arrests, which has been controversial. Supreme Court in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary vs Union of India (2022) upheld the ED's broad powers under PMLA, including the reverse burden of proof and ED's power of arrest.

  • ED established: 1956, under Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue).
  • Primary laws: PMLA (2002) — money laundering; FEMA (1999) — foreign exchange.
  • PMLA key powers: Search, seizure, attachment of property, arrest without warrant, prosecution.
  • Vijay Madanlal Choudhary vs Union of India (2022): SC upheld ED's PMLA powers; reverse burden of proof constitutional.
  • ED arrest figures: ED made ~5,000+ arrests under PMLA between 2005 and 2023 — conviction rate historically low (~5%).
  • Accountability: ED is not under the CBI; it has concurrent jurisdiction with state police for predicate offences.

Connection to this news: The I-PAC case highlights the tension between the ED's broad central investigative mandate and state governments' jurisdiction over law and order — the core federalism question the SC is addressing.

Centre-State Relations and Federal Policing: Constitutional Framework

India's federal structure assigns law and order to the State List (List II, Entry 1) and concurrent investigation powers overlap with the Union List (List I, Entry 8 — Central Bureau of Intelligence, and various economic laws). Central investigative agencies like the ED, CBI, and NIA derive jurisdiction from Union List entries and specific parliamentary legislation. The Convention requires State consent for CBI investigations (as established in practice); however, the ED and NIA operate without needing State government permission. The 7th Schedule's division of powers between Centre and States, combined with Article 355 (duty of the Union to protect States from internal disturbance) and Article 356 (President's Rule), forms the broader constitutional architecture within which Centre-State jurisdictional disputes play out.

  • 7th Schedule: Three lists — Union (List I), State (List II), Concurrent (List III).
  • Law and order: State List, Entry 1 (Police under states).
  • CBI: Derives jurisdiction from Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946; general consent by States required.
  • ED: Operates under PMLA (Central law); does not require State consent for searches or arrests.
  • NIA (National Investigation Agency): Central agency for terror cases; NIA Act 2008 overrides State jurisdiction.
  • Article 131: Original jurisdiction of SC for Centre-State disputes; requires a legal right being infringed.

Connection to this news: West Bengal's obstruction of the ED raid and the subsequent FIRs against ED officers represent a direct Centre-State jurisdictional clash — the Supreme Court's intervention signals that Central investigative agencies cannot be obstructed by State governments acting politically.

Key Facts & Data

  • I-PAC raid: January 8, 2026; Kolkata; linked to 2020 coal smuggling scam money-laundering probe.
  • CM Mamata Banerjee: Visited I-PAC founder's residence and office during raid, removed documents.
  • SC stay: Stayed FIRs registered by West Bengal Police against ED officials.
  • Constitutional question: Can ED file Article 32 writ against State government?
  • West Bengal's argument: Only citizens can invoke Article 32 against the State; Centre must use Article 131.
  • SC Bench: Justices PK Mishra and NV Anjaria.
  • SC observation (March 24): ED officials filed in personal capacity as citizens — individually entitled to invoke Article 32.
  • ED established: 1956; under Ministry of Finance.
  • ED's primary laws: PMLA (2002) and FEMA (1999).
  • Vijay Madanlal Choudhary (2022): SC upheld ED's broad PMLA powers.
  • Article 32: Fundamental right to constitutional remedies; SC can issue 5 types of writs.
  • Article 131: SC's original jurisdiction for Centre-State legal disputes.