India News | ED Raids at I-PAC: West Bengal Seeks Five-judge Bench Hearing in Supreme Court

New Delhi [India], March 18 (ANI): The West Bengal government on Wednesday sought a reference to a five-judge Constitution Bench in the Supreme Court in the I-PAC raids case, arguing that the matter raises substantial questions of constitutional interpretation, particularly on Centre-State relations and the maintainability of the Enforcement Directorate's (ED) plea under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.

Senior Advocate Shyam Divan, appearing for the State, submitted before a bench of Justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and KV Vishwanathan that the present proceedings cannot be adjudicated by a two-judge Bench as they involve foundational questions about the constitutional scheme.

Also Read | Kerala Assembly Elections 2026: Actors Anjali Nair and Veena Nair To Contest for Twenty20.

He argued that the dispute concerns the correct forum and mechanism for resolving issues between the Union and a State, which, according to him, must be tested against the Constitution's federal structure.

"This is a matter involving interpretation of the Constitution. There is a structure and manner to examine the issue... Article 32 cannot be invoked in this manner. It undermines the federal structure, which is part of the basic structure of the Constitution", Divan argued.

Also Read | Nagaland Dear Lottery Sambad Result Today 1 PM Live: Dear Spark Wednesday Lottery Result of March 18 2026 Declared Online, Watch Lucky Draw Winners List.

Divan further contended that permitting a Central agency like the ED to directly invoke Article 32 against a State would bypass the carefully designed constitutional framework governing Centre-State disputes.

"The ED does not, as the primary petitioner, have corporate existence and does not have a right to sue. The ED is not a juristic entity", the counsel added.

He argued that as a department of the Union government, the ED lacks independent legal personality and therefore cannot maintain proceedings in its own name before the Court.

"Having regard to Part III, there has to be a breach of fundamental rights. A department of the Union government cannot claim breach of fundamental rights... it is the Union itself which guarantees and protects these rights" he added.

Divan emphasised that a petition under Article 32 necessarily requires enforcement of fundamental rights, which cannot be invoked by a State instrumentality or a limb of the Union against another constitutional entity.

"When the States decide to go against the Union, there are many considerations. The Constitution provides the architecture to resolve such disputes... this cannot be bypassed by invoking Article 32."

He submitted that the present controversy squarely falls within the domain of constitutional adjudication involving federal balance, warranting consideration by a Constitution Bench.

Referring to Article 145 of the Constitution of India, Divan argued that questions involving substantial interpretation of the Constitution must be placed before a Bench of at least five judges.

"When such issues arise, the Constitution itself provides that a minimum five-judge Bench is required."

The submissions were made as the Court commenced hearing on the ED's plea alleging obstruction by the State and Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee during search operations at the offices of I-PAC.

At the outset, the State sought time to respond to the ED's rejoinder affidavit, terming it as going beyond the scope of the pleadings.

"We require some time to respond. It's not a rejoinder in the conventional sense."

Opposing the request, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta submitted that the State had not shown sufficient cause to seek adjournment and accused it of attempting to delay the proceedings.

The Court declined to adjourn the matter and directed the State to proceed with its submissions. The hearing is currently underway, as the Court is hearing arguments by the West Bengal government.

The Court had earlier issued notice to West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee and other senior officials of the State administration, including police officers, seeking their response to the ED's plea. The Court had also stayed the FIR registered by the West Bengal Police against ED officials who had entered the I-PAC office to conduct the search.

The State government was also directed to preserve CCTV footage at I-PAC as well as footage from cameras in the surrounding areas.

The apex court has earlier also rejected the State's objection that the dispute ought to be heard by the Calcutta High Court. The Bench observed that the case involved larger constitutional questions that warranted examination by the Supreme Court.

Subsequently, CM Mamata Banerjee and the WB government, in their response, have challenged the maintainability of the ED's petition filed under Article 32, arguing that the Supreme Court's writ jurisdiction is limited to the enforcement of fundamental rights and does not extend to alleged statutory violations or disputes involving contested facts.

The West Bengal CM has contended that the ED failed to avail alternate remedies under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA). According to her response, the agency did not invoke the procedure under Section 66(2) of the Act, did not seek registration of an FIR in West Bengal, and did not approach the jurisdictional Magistrate.

CM Banerjee has further accused the ED of forum shopping, stating that it had filed an identical petition before the Calcutta High Court on January 9, 2026, prior to moving the Supreme Court on January 12.

(The above story is verified and authored by ANI staff, ANI is South Asia's leading multimedia news agency with over 100 bureaus in India, South Asia and across the globe. ANI brings the latest news on Politics and Current Affairs in India & around the World, Sports, Health, Fitness, Entertainment, & News. The views appearing in the above post do not reflect the opinions of LatestLY)