Supreme Court Slams Mamata Banerjee: ‘ED Charge of Interference Is Serious’ in Escalating Federal Clash

ED charge of interference serious, says SC on face-off with Mamata

In a courtroom moment that could reshape Centre-state dynamics, the Supreme Court of India delivered a stinging observation this week: the Enforcement Directorate’s (ED) claim that West Bengal officials are obstructing a federal financial probe is not just routine—it’s “serious.”

The comment came during hearings linked to an ongoing money laundering investigation involving senior Trinamool Congress (TMC) leaders. At the heart of the dispute is the ED’s allegation that state machinery—reportedly acting under political direction—has repeatedly interfered with its operations, from denying police protection to intimidating witnesses.

While Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee has long accused the ED of being a “political weapon” of the BJP-led Centre, the apex court’s latest stance signals growing judicial impatience with what it perceives as institutional defiance. This isn’t just about one investigation—it’s about who holds authority in India’s federal framework.

Table of Contents

The ED Charge of Interference: What Exactly Is Alleged?

The Enforcement Directorate, operating under the Ministry of Finance, is investigating alleged irregularities in the West Bengal School Service Commission (WBSSC) recruitment scam—a case that has already seen multiple TMC ministers arrested.

In affidavits filed before the Supreme Court, the ED claims:

  • State police refused to provide security during raids, citing “orders from above.”
  • Local officials tipped off suspects ahead of searches.
  • Witnesses were harassed by state-backed groups after cooperating with the ED.
  • Official vehicles and government resources were used to stage protests outside ED offices .

These actions, the agency argues, constitute deliberate obstruction under Section 19 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA)—a criminal offense punishable by up to five years in prison.

Supreme Court’s Strong Wording: A Constitutional Warning

During oral arguments, a bench headed by Justice B.R. Gavai did not mince words. “When a statutory agency alleges that a state government is interfering with a lawful investigation, that is not a trivial matter,” the Court observed. “This goes to the root of governance.”

Critically, the Court rejected Mamata’s repeated framing of the ED as a “tool of vendetta,” stating: “Allegations of political misuse must be proven—not asserted to justify non-cooperation.” The judiciary, it emphasized, cannot allow elected governments to selectively comply with federal laws.

Mamata Banerjee’s Defense: Political Persecution or Legitimate Resistance?

Mamata and her legal team counter that the ED’s actions violate federal principles enshrined in the Constitution. They cite Article 246, which demarcates state control over “public order” and “police”—arguing that deploying state police for central agency operations requires consent.

“We are not obstructing justice,” Mamata told reporters. “We are defending West Bengal’s autonomy from Delhi’s overreach.” Her supporters point to similar standoffs in Tamil Nadu and Kerala, where state governments have also resisted ED/IT raids on grounds of sovereignty.

Precedents: When States Clash With Central Agencies

This isn’t the first Centre-state confrontation over investigative powers:

  • 2021 (Tamil Nadu): DMK government denied police support to CBI in a corruption case; SC later ruled states must assist central agencies “unless there’s a valid legal bar” .
  • 2023 (Delhi): AAP government accused ED of bypassing LG; High Court upheld ED’s jurisdiction but urged “cooperative federalism.”
  • 2019 (Kerala): State refused CBI entry without governor’s nod; matter settled via political negotiation.

However, the current West Bengal case is unique in the scale of alleged systemic obstruction—and the Supreme Court’s unusually direct language.

Why This Case Threatens Federal Balance

At stake is a core tension in India’s quasi-federal system: Can a state government legally resist a central agency if it believes the probe is politically motivated?

Constitutional scholars like Dr. Arvind Datar argue that while states have administrative rights, they cannot nullify parliamentary laws like the PMLA. “Federalism doesn’t mean secession from legal accountability,” he notes .

Conversely, critics warn that unchecked ED power risks creating a “centralized investigative autocracy”—especially when the ruling party controls both the Centre and the agency.

Reactions have been polarized:

  • Pro-ED View: “The Court is right—no government is above the law,” says former Solicitor General Harish Salve.
  • Pro-State View: “This sets a dangerous precedent for undermining elected state governments,” warns constitutional expert Madhav Khosla.

What’s clear is that the judiciary is increasingly stepping into the breach as political trust erodes—a trend that could redefine Indian federalism for decades.

Conclusion: A Test for Indian Federalism

The Supreme Court’s declaration that the ED charge of interference is “serious” is more than a legal footnote—it’s a warning shot across the bow of all state governments. While Mamata Banerjee frames her resistance as democratic defiance, the Court sees it as institutional insubordination.

As the case proceeds, the real question isn’t just about guilt or innocence in the WBSSC scam—it’s whether India can sustain a functional federation when mutual suspicion replaces cooperative governance. For deeper analysis, see our [INTERNAL_LINK:centre-state-relations-india-crisis] explainer.

Sources

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Scroll to Top