ED files rejoinder in SC, opposes Bengal’s stand on I-PAC search

Kolkata: The Enforcement Directorate (ED) has filed a rejoinder affidavit before the Supreme Court reportedly opposing the West Bengal government’s stand over the agency’s search at the IPAC office, escalating the legal battle over alleged interference by state authorities.

In its affidavit, the ED is learnt to have disputed the state’s claim that Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee removed materials from the search premises without objection from the agency. The ED contended that once materials were taken away, it became impossible to determine whether they comprised only confidential Trinamool Congress documents or also included evidence linked to the alleged offence under investigation. The agency has alleged that incriminating material was forcibly removed and described the incident as a “theft”.

The ED maintained that its writ petition is maintainable as it involves the fundamental rights of two categories — the general public and ED officials. It argued that citizens have a fundamental right to proper implementation of anti-money laundering laws and to a fair investigation, particularly as the alleged laundering of proceeds from illegal mining affects the public at large.

Any obstruction to lawful action under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, it said, violates the rule of law and Article 14.

Regarding its officers, the ED alleged acts of intimidation, wrongful confinement and use of force, claiming that such conduct infringed their right to personal liberty and freedom of movement while discharging official duties. It added that the Supreme Court had earlier issued notice and stayed further proceedings against ED officials, observing that non-interference could lead to lawlessness.

Rejecting the state’s contention that the dispute should fall under Article 131 as a Centre–State matter, the ED argued that it is seeking registration of an FIR over alleged abuse of power by state functionaries. It further asserted that at the stage of FIR registration and investigation, the only consideration is whether allegations disclose a cognizable offence. The agency also termed the state’s justification — that armed persons had impersonated central officers — as a “camouflage”, stating that its officials had duly identified themselves during the search.