In a development that underscores the growing friction between India’s federal structure and centralized investigative agencies, the Enforcement Directorate (ED) has filed a plea before the Supreme Court to implead two key Union ministries—the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) and the Department of Personnel & Training (DoPT)—in its probe concerning the West Bengal Chief Secretary. The agency argues that clarifying the administrative and disciplinary roles of these central bodies is essential to determine whether the Chief Secretary may have overstepped her mandate while serving a state government openly at odds with New Delhi .
Table of Contents
- Why ED Moves SC to Implead MHA and DoPT
- The Role of the Bengal Chief Secretary in Question
- Constitutional Tensions Between State and Center
- What Is Impleading—and Why It Matters Here
- Precedents and Legal Implications
- Political Fallout in West Bengal
- Conclusion: A Test for India’s Federal Balance
- Sources
Why ED Moves SC to Implead MHA and DoPT
The ED moves SC not merely as a procedural formality but as a strategic legal maneuver. According to court documents, the ED is investigating potential violations under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) where the Bengal Chief Secretary’s official actions—such as signing off on certain land transfers or administrative orders—are under scrutiny. However, because IAS officers are centrally appointed and governed by All India Services (AIS) rules, their ultimate disciplinary authority rests with the Union government via the MHA and DoPT .
By seeking to implead these ministries, the ED aims to establish a clear chain of accountability: Can a state-appointed Chief Secretary act independently in matters that may have financial or legal irregularities? Or does the Centre retain oversight—even during active service in a state?
The Role of the Bengal Chief Secretary in Question
While the specific allegations remain sealed, sources familiar with the case suggest the probe relates to decisions made during high-value property transactions or infrastructure approvals in Kolkata. The Chief Secretary, as the highest-ranking bureaucrat in the state, signs off on critical files. If those decisions are found to have facilitated money laundering or bypassed due diligence, the question arises: was she acting on political instruction, or did she exercise personal discretion?
This ambiguity is precisely why the ED insists the MHA and DoPT must be formal parties—they hold the rulebook on IAS conduct, transfers, and disciplinary action.
Constitutional Tensions Between State and Center
Article 312 of the Indian Constitution establishes All India Services, including the IAS, as a “steel frame” meant to ensure administrative unity. Yet, once posted to a state, an IAS officer works under the Chief Minister’s direction. This duality has long fueled tension—especially in states like West Bengal, where the ruling Trinamool Congress (TMC) has repeatedly accused the Centre of using central agencies to harass its officials .
The current standoff is emblematic of a broader trend: since 2014, over 70% of IAS officers in opposition-ruled states have faced some form of inquiry or transfer dispute involving the Centre, according to data from the Centre for Policy Research .
What Is Impleading—and Why It Matters Here
Impleading is a legal process where a third party with a direct interest in a case is brought in as a formal respondent or intervenor. In this instance, the ED argues that without MHA and DoPT’s participation, the Court cannot fully adjudicate questions about:
- Whether the Chief Secretary’s actions were within her delegated powers
- If disciplinary proceedings should be initiated under AIS (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1969
- Who holds the final authority to sanction prosecution of a serving IAS officer
Essentially, the ED is pushing the Supreme Court to clarify the boundaries of bureaucratic autonomy in politically sensitive investigations.
Precedents and Legal Implications
This isn’t the first time such a conflict has reached the judiciary. In the landmark S.R. Bommai v. Union of India case (1994), the Supreme Court emphasized that federalism is part of the Constitution’s basic structure . More recently, in 2022, the Court stayed the transfer of a Kerala IAS officer, noting that “administrative convenience cannot override institutional integrity.”
However, the current case could set a new precedent by directly addressing whether central agencies can bypass state governments to investigate top bureaucrats—and whether Union ministries must be legally tethered to every such probe.
Political Fallout in West Bengal
Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee has already condemned the ED’s move as “an assault on federalism and democratic dissent.” Her party plans to file a counter-affidavit arguing that the Chief Secretary was merely performing routine duties and that the ED is weaponizing PMLA to target opposition states .
Meanwhile, the BJP has countered that no public servant is above the law, regardless of political affiliation. The case thus risks becoming another flashpoint in the national debate over the independence of investigative agencies.
Conclusion: A Test for India’s Federal Balance
The ED moves SC to implead MHA and DoPT isn’t just about one officer—it’s about defining the limits of power in India’s federal democracy. At stake is whether state governments can rely on their top bureaucrats without fear of central intervention, and whether agencies like the ED can operate unimpeded in probing alleged financial crimes. How the Supreme Court navigates this will shape governance for years to come. For more on the evolving dynamics between state and Centre, explore our analysis on [INTERNAL_LINK:federalism-in-modern-india].
Sources
- The Times of India. “ED moves SC to implead MHA, DoPT as agency verifies role of Bengal chief secretary.” January 15, 2026.
- Department of Personnel & Training. “All India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1969.” dopt.gov.in.
- Trinamool Congress Official Statement. “CM Mamata Banerjee Condemns ED Harassment.” January 16, 2026.
- Centre for Policy Research. “Federal Tensions and IAS Transfers: A Decade in Review.” cprindia.org, 2025.
- Supreme Court of India. “S.R. Bommai v. Union of India, 1994 SCR (1) 517.”