India's Supreme Court on Tuesday asked West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee what her legal reaction would be if, by 2030-2031, her party held power at the Centre and an opposing Chief Minister disrupted a central agency raid. The question arose during a hearing on the Enforcement Directorate's petition over a January raid interruption. The bench raised concerns about state interference in central probes.
On March 24, 2026, a Supreme Court bench led by Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra posed a hypothetical to West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee and her state government. Responding to their arguments that the Enforcement Directorate (ED) cannot directly approach the court under Article 32 claiming fundamental rights violations, the judge asked: “What would you do if the situation were reversed? In 2030-2031, you come to power in the Centre, and one of their Chief Ministers does something like this… What will be your reaction, your legal reaction?” The query went to senior advocate Kalyan Bandhopadhyay, appearing with Kapil Sibal for Banerjee. He replied, “We have to go by the law.” The ED's petition stems from a January raid at I-PAC co-founder Pratik Jain’s residence and offices, which the Trinamool Congress—ruling party in poll-bound West Bengal—consults for electoral strategy. The ED alleges Banerjee barged in, removing paper and digital evidence, and seeks a CBI probe against her and senior police officers. The court noted an Article 32 petition filed by an ED officer, with Justice Mishra questioning: “Do officers of the ED cease to be citizens of India merely because they are in the official post at the time? Is it that any wrong can be done to them, and they cannot approach this court under Article 32?” In a prior hearing, the bench had asked if ED officers were to merely “look and watch” as Banerjee intervened. The state, via senior advocates A.M. Singhvi, Shyam Divan, and Siddharth Luthra, argued the ED is neither a “body corporate” nor a “legal or natural person” eligible under Article 32. Divan noted it as a central government department without sue rights under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta emphasized the Chief Minister hindered a lawful investigation in the “larger public interest.” The raids relate to a ₹2,742-crore coal smuggling case.
