SC Questions Delay Plea by Bengal Govt in ED’s I-PAC Raid Case

SC Questions Delay Plea by Bengal Govt in ED’s I-PAC Raid Case

Today, the Supreme Court of India told lawyers appearing for the Government of West Bengal that parties cannot dictate to the judiciary when a case should be heard.

The observation came while the court was hearing a writ petition filed by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) concerning the raid carried out at the office of political consultancy firm Indian Political Action Committee (I-PAC), which works with the All India Trinamool Congress.

The raids were conducted in early January as part of a money laundering investigation. The ED has alleged that West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee and some state officials interfered with the search operation.

During the hearing, the West Bengal government sought more time to file a response to a counter-affidavit filed by the ED. Appearing for the state, senior advocate Shyam Divan argued that the affidavit contained several new allegations and that the state required additional time to respond.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the ED, opposed the request. He submitted that the affidavit had already been filed on February 19 and argued that the request for more time was merely an attempt to delay the proceedings.

Mehta also told the court that it was shocking for a Chief Minister to interfere in an investigation being conducted by a central agency. According to the ED, Banerjee entered the I-PAC office with her Z-plus security while the search was underway and allegedly removed incriminating material.

Senior advocate Menaka Guruswamy, also representing the West Bengal government, argued that since fresh allegations had been made in the affidavit, the state should be allowed to file a response.

However, the court noted that the rejoinder had already been filed about ten days ago and said that the hearing would proceed. The bench also clarified that no party can dictate when the judiciary should hear a case.

When Divan said the state felt “handicapped” without filing a response, the court remarked that the proceedings were not a contest over seeking adjournments.

Share this News

Website designed, developed and maintained by webexy