New Delhi:
The Supreme Court on Wednesday told the lawyers representing the Bengal government in the I-PAC raid case that they “cannot dictate” to the judiciary when a particular case should be heard.
The Enforcement Directorate, or ED, has accused Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee and state officials of interfering with its investigation and searches at the offices of political consultancy firm Indian Political Action Committee, or I-PAC, which works with the Trinamool.
The raids happened in early January as part of a money laundering investigation.
The top court made the comments while it was hearing the writ petition filed by the central probe agency and has alleged “gross abuse of power” by the Bengal Chief Minister, who walked into the premises while the raids were on.
The Bengal government had sought additional time to file a response to the counter-affidavit submitted by the ED, which investigates financial crimes.
Representing the state government, senior lawyer Shyam Divan argued that the affidavit filed by the ED contains several new points and allegations, for which they require more time to formulate a response.
Opposing this request for an extension, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the ED, objected to the granting of time.
Mehta submitted that the affidavit in question was filed on February 19, and the current move is merely a delaying tactic aimed at stalling the hearing.
He further remarked that it is shocking for a Chief Minister to interfere in an investigation being conducted by a central agency, and that the matter is now being deliberately delayed.
The central probe agency had said the Chief Minister entered the IPAC premises with her Z-plus security in “complete disregard of the lawful proceedings that were already underway” and forcibly retrieved incriminating material.
Representing the Bengal government, senior lawyer Menaka Guruswamy also argued that since new allegations have been raised in the affidavit, they ought to be granted an opportunity to file a response.
However, the court observed that the rejoinder had already been filed approximately 10 days ago, adding that the hearing would now proceed.
The court clarified that one cannot dictate to the judiciary when a particular case should be heard.
When Shyam Divan submitted that they felt “handicapped” without having filed a response, the court remarked that the proceedings were not a contest over securing an adjournment.
