SC questions ED’s claim of rule of law breach in Bengal, Pg1

Key Highlights:

• The Supreme Court questioned the Enforcement Directorate (ED) on whether it was implying a "breakdown of constitutional machinery" in West Bengal during a hearing on April 23, 2026.
• The ED cited alleged violations by the Chief Minister, state police, and bureaucrats related to a coal smuggling case and raids on I-PAC premises.
• The ED argued that the "rule of law" was violated, impacting the fundamental rights of its officials due to allegedly orchestrated police FIRs.
• The West Bengal government, represented by Kapil Sibal, contended that the Centre should have filed a suit under Article 131 instead of the ED filing a writ petition.

Detailed Insights:

• The ED referred to past incidents, including the police "siege" of a CBI Joint Director's residence and the crowding of lawyers in a Calcutta High Court courtroom, to support its claim of a "non-existent" rule of law in West Bengal.
• The Solicitor-General argued that the ED had the right to approach the Supreme Court under Article 32 to enforce the fundamental rights of its officials, whose personal liberty was threatened.
• Article 131 is typically invoked when there is a dispute of a federal nature between the Centre and a State, but the ED argued that this case was a law and order issue.
• The Supreme Court questioned the ED on whether its arguments could be interpreted as calling for the imposition of President’s Rule under Article 356 of the Constitution.

Key Concepts Involved:

• Article 32: Grants the right to individuals to move the Supreme Court seeking remedies for violation of their fundamental rights.
• Article 131: Grants the Supreme Court original jurisdiction in disputes between the Government of India and one or more states.
• Article 356: Allows the President of India to impose President's Rule in a state if there is a failure of constitutional machinery.

ED