SC questions ED's claim of rule of law breach in Bengal; Solicitor-General clarifies stance
The Supreme Court questioned the Directorate of Enforcement (ED) on whether it was arguing for a "breakdown of constitutional machinery" in West Bengal, momentarily pausing the agency's rejoinder against Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee and State police officers. The ED had alleged violations of the rule of law during a raid related to a coal smuggling case, citing a "well-established pattern" of violations by the Chief Minister and the ruling Trinamool Congress. Solicitor-General Tushar Mehta clarified that the ED was not arguing for Article 356 (President's Rule) but rather asserting the fundamental rights of its officials to equality before the law.
Key Points
- The Supreme Court questioned the ED's argument regarding a "breakdown of constitutional machinery" in West Bengal.
- The ED's submissions highlighted a "well-established pattern" of rule of law violations by the Chief Minister and State police.
- Solicitor-General Tushar Mehta clarified that the ED was asserting fundamental rights of its officials, not seeking President's Rule.
- The case involves alleged violations during an ED raid related to a coal smuggling case.
- States like West Bengal and Tamil Nadu have previously approached the Supreme Court under Article 32.
Exam Facts
- Supreme Court Justices: N.V. Anjaria, Prashant Kumar Mishra
- Solicitor-General: Tushar Mehta
- Constitutional Articles: Article 356 (President's Rule), Article 32 (writ petition), Article 131 (original suit for Centre-State disputes)
- Central agencies: Directorate of Enforcement (ED), Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI)
Read it. Retain it. Recall it.
Get spaced-repetition flashcards, daily quizzes and offline access — free on Android.